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

[Warpiglet-7]

I feel like there's enough room, even in the current 5e class composition, for spellcasting structures that allow for multiple preferences.

There can definitely be a class or classes with no cantrips, instead using a few high potency spells. Likewise, there can be a class or classes that only use cantrips and/or low level spells, but gets many or unlimited uses of them.

My concern is that there are so many possible permutations of casting methods, just even the ones mentioned in this thread, that I don't think a single Player's Handbook could contain them all. We've got suggestions ranging from AD&D style individual slot preparation all the way to "cantrips and invocations" style of 3e/5e warlocks.

Frankly, I would really welcome optional rules for spellcasting as well as survival aspects of the game.

I would love a dmg that has groupings of suggested options for different game styles. I know there are some now but would like more of them and more recommendations.

I would like an old style with my game with pals and something more current for my kids/family.

 

[Aldarc]

I feel like there's enough room, even in the current 5e class composition, for spellcasting structures that allow for multiple preferences.

There can definitely be a class or classes with no cantrips, instead using a few high potency spells. Likewise, there can be a class or classes that only use cantrips and/or low level spells, but gets many or unlimited uses of them.

My concern is that there are so many possible permutations of casting methods, just even the ones mentioned in this thread, that I don't think a single Player's Handbook could contain them all. We've got suggestions ranging from AD&D style individual slot preparation all the way to "cantrips and invocations" style of 3e/5e warlocks.

And WotC's desire for level-by-level options for multiclassing is another complication for all of that.

 

[Raiztt]

Taunt is a good idea - try to get your foes so mad they go berserk and throw caution, and defense, to the wind. I like it.

That said, for consistency it has to be available to the foes as well; and players would cry bloody blue murder the second such an ability got used against their PCs.

Dominate person already exists and i guess PCs can just deal with it?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Make ALL Spell casting require Skill checks (via Spell attack bonus) - so no more autosuccess spells

That's how "m handling it. Kinda like Earthdawn. Not only have a chance for failure, but some spells have a critical failure where the spell does something negative. It's gone a LONG way to bringing casters down to earth. And makes magic feel...magic again. That unpredictability factor.

 

[TwoSix]

And WotC's desire for level-by-level options for multiclassing is another complication for all of that.

Yea, that's definitely a complicating factor. A homogenous spellcasting structure is obviously a boon for multiclassing (and was called out as such on 5e's release), but makes adding classes with novel structures much more difficult.

I mean, I guess the basic answer is 5e's approach of "That's a bad multiclass, so don't do it. We warned you that multiclassing is optional and hard!"

 

[mamba]

But this really doesn't make sense considering the sort of foes that the top tier characters face.

what they face is up to the DM, and a group of 4 or 5 PCs can bring down quite a bit.

But wizard already is Doctor Strange, that's the problem.

that is the problem agreed, I am all for fixing that by bringing casters down a notch. Not by raising martials to superhero levels

Also, you probably don't need Hulk, if you nerf the casters a bit we can settle for Captain America.

we might be able to, I want nerfed casters and buffed martials

 

[mamba]

But even those characters vary vastly in power. James Bond is maybe, with good will a level 2 rogue. Batman is a level 10 one. Black Widow, depending on the source a Level 6 assassin and Conan? In some Short Stories I read he is a level 1 or 2 thief. The Schwarzenegger Conan is maybe a level 3 Barbarian.

I did not bring them up. I am ok with Batman being the the max thanks to his legendary items.

 

[Eric V]

Not having seen a lot of the ideas in the thread, so apologies if this has been mentioned:

To address the issue of "why don't martials do these maneuvers all the time?"...make the resource for those maneuvers hit points.

Since hp represent more than just meat, and they are also a measure of the character's vitality overall, make them what gets spent when pulling off a maneuver.

So, the fighter can use, say, "Whirlwind Strike" which is an attack that targets all opponents within reach and it costs X hit points. When the fighter is weakened (low on hp), she has a hard time pulling off that move. When she's at capacity, no problem. Higher level maneuvers would cost more hp and have greater effects.

A system like this seems to reflect what we see in action movies, comics, etc. It has a natural scale-ability to it, and as a bonus makes in-combat healing more important beyond whack-a-mole.

Like different casters have different lists, different martials would have different lists of maneuvers; maybe rogues have more debilitating effects, and barbarians break armour and knock prone. As well, for people who prefer simple warriors...no problem. Don't use the maneuvers and keep your hit points.

Frankly, I wish this is how sorcerers worked as well.

 

[mamba]

No, definitely anyone. I don't like the idea that basic bodily actions are gatekept. It would make more sense for martials to be better at doing them, but it's not like a wizard can't attempt to shove someone.

I agree that anyone can shove and grapple (with varying success), but I want more maneuvers that buff martials that casters have no access to at all, just like martials do not have cantrips / spells instead of being 80% as effective with them compared to casters

 

[Gammadoodler]

A lot of the problem is definitional. We have a funny definition of what is "supernatural", whether it's magic or superscience, and anything that is not those things is "mundane". Personally, I think we should start by defining "supernatural" in terms of the square cube law.

It seems to me that the critical part M Natas is referring to is that the source of the power is somehow external to the biological nature of the hero whatever that source is.

And there are a few issues with it.

1. There's an underlying assumption about the baseline characteristics of D&D folk (i.e. Earth human) that has no basis beyond personal preference. Heck..a great many PC adventurers are explicitly not human in the first place
2. There are examples of "mundane" characters who do supernatural stuff. For "One Punch Man" to be an effective parody, it must be parodying something.
3. There is a temptation to apply exactly as much rigor as is needed to prove the point, to go looking for the foreign material that "makes" the superpower even if is completely internal to the biology of the character as they experience it (e.g. demigods and mutants)
4. It assumes that the fundamental nature of the character can't and shouldn't change over the course of leveling. This is silly when you consider what D&D adventurers do to gain that experience. Past a certain level they're basically hanging out in radiation labs, drinking super serums, and consorting with gods, fiends, and faeries a few times a month, yet none of this is expected to have any impact on the PC in any fundamental way. If they started out as a guard before they portaled into Hell, ate some souls for sustenance and slayed an archdevil, when they get out of Hell, they should still be just a guard.

Like..in any other media, D&D adventures would be superheroic origin stories. It's kinda headscratching really.