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

[Crimson Longinus]

Just about every single edition of D&D has given casters a new power at every level, with a significant increase in those powers every other level. This is because spells are a type of power. An extra spell slot? An extra power. An extra spell level? An extra power, more powerful than those that came before.

So D&D has been out of control by your definition pretty much ever since they opened up the teen levels, if not before.

I mean I really don't see point of a level from which you don't get anything new. Bigger numbers alone are pretty boring.

 

[Raiztt]

I mean he can also one shot a skyscraper and tank a neutron star, and those sound a tad above what I'd expect in D&D, but yeah, chain breaking and dragon fighting are obviously fine.

I mean, people like the style of fantasy they like so we probably shouldn't delve too deeply into these sorts of comparisons.

That being said, I've never run a campaign, regardless of level, where being stabbed in the heart while you were dead asleep didn't kill you instantly. That's the power level I'm thinking of, not so much as defined by what you can do as much as what you can't do/can't survive, etc.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean, fighters aren't allowed to taunt. What more are we going to take from them to limit their extremely linear growth?

 

[Gammadoodler]

I mean he can also one shot a skyscraper and tank a neutron star, and those sound a tad above what I'd expect in D&D, but yeah, chain breaking and dragon fighting are obviously fine.

It's interesting..on the one hand, yes, I can see how those things might seem ridiculously powerful.

On the other, the antagonists we put in front of martial PCs can be building-wrecking behemoths that breathe elemental energy..

And the D&D martial solution to that antagonist is to run up next to it, tank its elemental energy breath, and sedan-sized claw and tail strikes and physically beat that behemoth to death.

Like..are we really that far apart..?

 

[Raiztt]

I mean, fighters aren't allowed to taunt. What more are we going to take from them to limit their extremely linear growth?

I wouldn't mind seeing a more robust list of combat maneuvers that are available to anyone, but that the fighter would have 'expertise' (the game rule kind, as in 2x proficiency) with. The battle master can do some cool things, but not enough, and not often enough. I certainly don't think an ability to force a will save or be goaded is outside the realm of heroic fiction - high or low.

(We see Dutch (Arnie) try and fail his check vs. the predator in the classic sci-fi action thriller "The Predator")

 

[Raiztt]

It's interesting..on the one hand, yes, I can see how those things might seem ridiculously powerful.

On the other, the antagonists we put in front of martial PCs can be building-wrecking behemoths that breathe elemental energy..

And the D&D martial solution to that antagonist is to run up next to it, tank its elemental energy breath, and sedan-sized claw and tail strikes and physically beat that behemoth to death.

Like..are we really that far apart..?

Are Godzilla and a neutron star far apart? Yeah.

But I also have a problem with people even being able to (conventionally) fight anything larger than huge but that's a whole other thing.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Never said that. But if you want to keep up with Doctor Strange, you need to be Thor. I still recommend a new supernatural warrior class if that's your goal.

Then I think we're having separate conversations. There's a question regarding whether the overall power of the game needs to be toned down.."because its not the MCU".

Despite the fact that a lot of MCU scenarios and antagonists, and the heroes' responses to them are very much in line with a lot of traditional D&D gameplay.

Do we think that the opening of Thor Ragnarok (as an example) is "D&D enough". If not, what should have changed and why would that alternative, whatever it is, be "more D&D".

And then we tailor accordingly. If we think the MCU is a good exemplar for the gameplay we want, then we should be considering MCU superheroes as the appropriate exemplars when designing class abilities.

If not, then let's actually state what we're trying to model and why and then actually try to get there, instead of basing our decisions on what we don't want.

And for heaven's sake, when we choose the thing we're trying to model, whatever it is, let's make sure that it has good examples of reasonably balanced spellcaster and martial protagonists, because John Wick, Die Hard, Predator, Rambo, Commando, and Conan (at least the Arnie and Momoa versions I've seen) don't.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And for heaven's sake, when we choose the thing we're trying to model, whatever it is, let's make sure that it has good examples of reasonably balanced spellcaster and martial protagonists.

Games need to be balanced, genres really not so much. If we were to like re-do D&D from the start to, say, actually emulate ol' Appendix N, we would not have gotten Vancian, which was, like, literally unique at the time. Rather, we'd have wizards performing rituals and waiting for "the Stars to be Right" and whatnot - ironically, possibly having the odd psionic-seeming power. But, not the crazy variety & power that a D&D magic-user could display over a single day at high level - and, by 'high level,' like EGG in the 1e PH, and mean, like, 6th... at least 6th... (ie higher level than Gandalf).
OTOH, if we want to go for a modern source or two, like, oh, Harry Potter - oops, all Wizards.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Games need to be balanced, genres really not so much. If we were to like re-do D&D from the start to, say, actually emulate ol' Appendix N, we would not have gotten Vancian, which was, like, literally unique at the time. Rather, we'd have wizards performing rituals and waiting for "the Stars to be Right" and whatnot - ironically, possibly having the odd psionic-seeming power. But, not the crazy variety & power that a D&D magic-user could display over a single day at high level - and, by 'high level,' like EGG in the 1e PH, and mean, like, 6th... at least 6th... (ie higher level than Gandalf).
OTOH, if we want to go for a modern source or two, like, oh, Harry Potter - oops, all Wizards.

Oh sure. I understand how genres don't generally need to balance caster and martial archetypes and frequently would avoid doing so to showcase the "power" of one vs the other.

The trouble is that dramatically asymmetric power at the table feels bad for those who expect their character to be a peer with other PCs rather than a sidekick.

So maybe it's not a great design goal to effectively model a genre with wide gulfs in power between character archetypes, when other options ate available.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then I think we're having separate conversations. There's a question regarding whether the overall power of the game needs to be toned down.."because its not the MCU".

Despite the fact that a lot of MCU scenarios and antagonists, and the heroes' responses to them are very much in line with a lot of traditional D&D gameplay.

Do we think that the opening of Thor Ragnarok (as an example) is "D&D enough". If not, what should have changed and why would that alternative, whatever it is, be "more D&D".

And then we tailor accordingly. If we think the MCU is a good exemplar for the gameplay we want, then we should be considering MCU superheroes as the appropriate exemplars when designing class abilities.

If not, then let's actually state what we're trying to model and why and then actually try to get there, instead of basing our decisions on what we don't want.

And for heaven's sake, when we choose the thing we're trying to model, whatever it is, let's make sure that it has good examples of reasonably balanced spellcaster and martial protagonists, because John Wick, Die Hard, Predator, Rambo, Commando, and Conan (at least the Arnie and Momoa versions I've seen) don't.

The problem is, there are no high level martial example about which a plurality can be formed.