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

[I'm A Banana]

But if you try to play either as the other you're gonna die.

How's that? There's nothing inherent in "Fighter" or "Wizard" that is unique to it that is essential to party survivability. And various gish-type characters that blend elements of both are quite common (especially in 5e!).

Fighter used to be pretty coherent. And Fighter used to be Fighting Man.

The OG three-class structure was intentionally rather generic. Fighting Man, Magic User, Cleric; Martial, Magical, and a Gish. The first two especially were very much "all knights, mercenaries, soldiers, warriors, archers, pikemen, barbarians, etc. are Fighting Men; all sorcerers, enchanters, illusionists, necromancers, fortune-tellers, sages, wise men, witches, etc. are Magic Users"

But over time, "Magic User" became "Wizard" and became a specific type of bookish, intellectual spellcaster, making room for all sorts of other magical people.

"Fighting Man" got broken up into paladin or ranger or barbarian or even rogue...

And we don't have a generic "Magic User" class anymore - we have a bunch of specific spellcasters.

But we still have a "Fighter." They trundle on as a "generic" class trying to compete in a crowded field of characters that are a lot like a Fighter, but with more specific interesting detail.

The Fighter's lack of specific narrative traits is a significant part of this martial/magical problem. Which is where more specific character archetypes help. Dragon Slayer or Aberration Hunter trumps "Fighter" in terms of the neat stuff we'd imagine them doing.

One thing I've borrowed from WFRP 3e and Blades in the Dark for my 4e retroclone is the idea of a "Party Sheet" where the party agrees what they are about and get some bonuses for it. So a pirate crew is using a different sheet from a band on the run which is again different to a group trying to secure their home village and possibly become the local lords.

Party comp building is very 4e!

But, like, if I'm a tanky fighter build or a heavy-armor cleric build and I'm part of a pirate crew, we've got a bit of an issue what with heavy, rusty metal armor in the fiction of this salt-and-sea kind of narrative. Not really the same story.

Or, if I'm in a band on the run and I choose a character who is into crafting and needs things like a laboratory or library or other craft station.

Or, if I'm in a group trying to defend my home village and I choose an interplanar wanderer or a character of the wilderness like a druid or ranger.

Similarly, if I'm Grim Darkblade, a gritty warrior scarred by the horrors of war and I'm in the game where we go to the Feywild and talk with bunny rabbit people, I'm gonna have a bad time.

So, yes, party comp. But maybe let's only include options in the pool of selectable characters that are relevant for the adventure. Which may mean that a purely martial class just doesn't vibe, in the same way that a class with heavy armor or a crafting need or who can survive in the wilderness may just not fit. If you're telling a story about heroes in a world of magic, maybe "Doesn't Use Magic At All" isn't really a valid option most of the time.

 

[TwoSix]

Anime, manga, and light novels say hello.

All of which bleed into each other quite thoroughly. My point is that the doorstopper novels of our youths are still relevant, but not the driver of the genre anymore.

 

[overgeeked]

All of which bleed into each other quite thoroughly. My point is that the doorstopper novels of our youths are still relevant, but not the driver of the genre anymore.

Right. What I'm saying is that video games are not the main driver of the genre. Anime, manga, light novels drive the genre more. Modern fantasy like Brandon Sanderson drive the genre more. Urban fantasy like the Harry Dresden books drive the genre more. Harry Potter drive the genre more.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why is it a problem? The only edition this didn't happen in was 3.0 because it was killed two years in

Because in my view a game is better if it has a clear design goal. If your goals change, you should make a different game that follows those new goals, otherwise you risk alienating those who liked the original goals of your game and are uncomfortable with the new goals.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sanderson's magic systems would be super-fun classes. The Mistborn RPG make metal burning feel damn good, but I'm holding out for a game using Warbreaker's Breath.

 

[Neonchameleon]

How's that? There's nothing inherent in "Fighter" or "Wizard" that is unique to it that is essential to party survivability. And various gish-type characters that blend elements of both are quite common (especially in 5e!).

Because even bladesingers aren't tough enough to tank. And fighters don't get magic.

The OG three-class structure was intentionally rather generic. Fighting Man, Magic User, Cleric; Martial, Magical, and a Gish. The first two especially were very much "all knights, mercenaries, soldiers, warriors, archers, pikemen, barbarians, etc. are Fighting Men; all sorcerers, enchanters, illusionists, necromancers, fortune-tellers, sages, wise men, witches, etc. are Magic Users"

It also interacted very strongly with the treasure and equipment tables. Only fighters could wield swords, 25% of magic items IIRC were swords, and swords were far the best magic weapons. Only wizards could use weirdness from spellbooks or scrolls.

But over time, "Magic User" became "Wizard" and became a specific type of bookish, intellectual spellcaster, making room for all sorts of other magical people.

Wizard was always a bookish spellcaster. Who wrote their spells down in books. And who got new spells out of books. And who prepared their spells from books. The first thing to change was that when dungeon delving was sidelined and loot tables were there was no longer the "adventuring archaeologist" forced into the world building. The wizard didn't change - the world around them did in a way that made their books into special effects rather than rooted in the world.

And with no hard coded "this is how you get spells" built into the gamist elements of dungeon delving there was space for other ways of getting spells. This doesn't mean that the wizard has changed in the archetypes they represent. Indeed one of my criticisms of the wizard in 5e is that the subclasses are just Stuff that don't change the base class and how it interacts - and the wizard should be a sorcerer subclass.

But we still have a "Fighter." They trundle on as a "generic" class trying to compete in a crowded field of characters that are a lot like a Fighter, but with more specific interesting detail.

And trundle on as the single most popular class.

Party comp building is very 4e!

But, like, if I'm a tanky fighter build or a heavy-armor cleric build and I'm part of a pirate crew, we've got a bit of an issue what with heavy, rusty metal armor in the fiction of this salt-and-sea kind of narrative. Not really the same story.

This is part of why you get this sort of thing set up in session zero.

So, yes, party comp. But maybe let's only include options in the pool of selectable characters that are relevant for the adventure. Which may mean that a purely martial class just doesn't vibe, in the same way that a class with heavy armor or a crafting need or who can survive in the wilderness may just not fit. If you're telling a story about heroes in a world of magic, maybe "Doesn't Use Magic At All" isn't really a valid option most of the time.

Or leave it up to the players. I mean The Seven Samurai/The Magnificent Seven/Battle Beyond the Stars is archetypal defend the village - and there are plenty of drifters among the seven.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because in my view a game is better if it has a clear design goal. If your goals change, you should make a different game that follows those new goals, otherwise you risk alienating those who liked the original goals of your game and are uncomfortable with the new goals.

And in my view the strength of a class based game is that you can have a multiplicity of perspectives. Which means multiple goals.

And I'd say the goal of One D&D is the same as 2014 D&D - which is to be a game spread broad to appeal to the greatest number of those who show up. This is what the surveys are like both times. Neither of us are the same person we were in 2014.

 

[tetrasodium]

To be clear, when I say "modern representations of fantasy mages" I mean stuff that's been created recently, in the last decade or so, not urban fantasy. Just wanted to clarify since a little more than half of your list is urban fantasy characters, which I don't think need more than a token nod in D&D.

The bulk of modern "sword and sorcery" medieval style fantasy is coming from video games or from gamelit fantasy, so that's definitely the type of fantasy that should be influencing current fantasy TTRPGs.

Sooo... nothing but one dimensional self insert isekai/gamelit characters unworthy of being named? Or can some of those created in the last decade be named?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sooo... nothing but one dimensional self insert isekai/gamelit characters unworthy of being named? Or can some of those created in the last decade be named?

Everyone thinks every character from every isekai is Kirito.

some of thme are delightful tiny children that just want books, or horrible spider creatures, or vending machines.

 

[TwoSix]

Right. What I'm saying is that video games are not the main driver of the genre. Anime, manga, light novels drive the genre more. Modern fantasy like Brandon Sanderson drive the genre more. Urban fantasy like the Harry Dresden books drive the genre more. Harry Potter drive the genre more.

We can quibble. Video game tropes exert a strong influence on anime and manga and gamelit, but get influenced right back. Just like how D&D was/is such a strong influence on pretty much all of fantasy video gaming.

Trying to parse exact amounts or rankings of influence isn't really worth any of our time.