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

[overgeeked]

So, full disclosure: I was more than fine with 4e's AEDU system. The "dissociated mechanics" argument never really made sense to me. I understand, however, that it's a deal-breaker for some, so I went with the thing that is already kind of meta, and had a workable "in-universe" explanation. Depending on the cost, it could work well, IMO.

Re: karma. I hated that in TSR Marvel too, though to be fair, hp are much more replenishable than karma points. As well, under a system like this, THP could fuel maneuvers as well, so when I get inspired and get THP, they still serve a purpose, even if no one attacks me.

There's nothing wrong with having a spendable resource that represents a limited supply of "energy" someone can expend before being tapped out. There's nothing wrong with martials having something like that. That would make way more in-universe sense than an arbitrary limiter like once per encounter, short rest, or long rest. Look at superiority dice. People don't seem to complain about those, except that there's not enough. So make something like that only more robust.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which brings up a whole other long drawn out version of the same discussion. What's appropriate for a source for D&D? Which is already a subthread here. But, like most "discussions" about this kind of thing, people put their goals first so want a curated list of sources that they think are "appropriate" because those sources reinforce their preferences for the game.

There's a whole lot of assumptions you're making in that quote.

The "problematic design" is not just attack cantrips. And it's questionable if that even is problematic design. If martials were boosted to be even roughly on par with casters, cantrips wouldn't matter. If martials are forced to stay lame and casters brought low, then yes, cantrips are problematic. I don't buy that line of reasoning. The best fix, for me, is to buff martials. And to minorly tweak casters. As I said up thread, splitting off non-combat spells into rituals would make balancing what remains simple. Giving everyone access to rituals would then close the majority of the gap between martials and casters.

But, it's worth pointing out that yes, a few of the anime and manga I pointed to do, in fact, have the equivalent to at-will cantrips. The most glaring one is Rudeus from Mushoku Tensei. And though I'm only one the second light novel, I feel confident that a few of his students will get to the point of also having at-will attack cantrips. It's also a great source for boosted martials. Ghislaine, Paul, the Sword Gods, etc. They would all be fantastic templates for proper martials.

And to that point, I mentioned those anime, manga, etc not as a reference point to show at-will cantrips. That's an assumption you made or a bit of us talking past each other. I've mentioned them in the thread repeatedly as an example of what younger fans see and will likely expect as martial characters to contrast that with the the older fans who are still pointing to Appendix N and refusing to let martials be anything more than a mook with a few extra hit points.

This assumes that the only problem with at-will cantrips is one of power. I primarily see it as a worldbuilding issue, as it reinforces a high magic narrative I may not want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's nothing wrong with having a spendable resource that represents a limited supply of "energy" someone can expend before being tapped out. There's nothing wrong with martials having something like that. That would make way more in-universe sense than an arbitrary limiter like once per encounter, short rest, or long rest. Look at superiority dice. People don't seem to complain about those, except that there's not enough. So make something like that only more robust.

Hence Level Up's combat maneuver system, which uses a limiting mechanic similar to superiority dice in a wider context that crosses class lines.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Mentioning them and using them as an irrelevant Snape hunt to deflect a spotlight being pointed at problematic design elements are different things though aren't they? .

 

[TwoSix]

Hard disagree. If you want that narrative, put it in the book, just like we do for the magic and gods stuff.

It's not a question of wanting that narrative. That narrative MUST exist if we accept the basic premises of the 5e rules.

A 20th level champion fighter, armed with only a greatsword and armor, no magical items, can kill 10 grizzly bears. Relatively comfortably, actually. (Feel free to run the combat simulation if you don't believe me.) That is an impossible task for anyone with the capabilities of a mundane Earth human, no matter how skilled or trained. Ergo, a 20th level fighter is a supernatural (or at least preternatural) being.

Since none of the class features or subclass features explain this capability as an exception to the setting logic, the core, inescapable premise of leveling in D&D is that leveling turns a mortal into a supernatural being.

 

[mamba]

I look it at more as "A simple extrapolation of the rules shows that leveling turns mortals into supernaturals. Since this is true, every table should have a basic implied narrative to describe it."

that is not really based on anything in the books though. There is no mechanical support (you were bitten by a glowing spider and now know the Web spell), there is not even a narrative explanation

You can certainly use that explanation for your table, but it does not account for the rules / my ‘slay a million orcs instead’ to gain the same XP, but as you said that scenario never comes up, so you can get away with not explaining it

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which brings up a whole other long drawn out version of the same discussion. What's appropriate for a source for D&D? Which is already a subthread here. But, like most "discussions" about this kind of thing, people put their goals first so want a curated list of sources that they think are "appropriate" because those sources reinforce their preferences for the game.

I mean, it's not like D&D has ever done a great job emulating all of Appendix N, anyway.

But, y'know, "assume everyone gets to be supernatural at higher level" (or otherwise making martials not juts martials anymore), and moving the goal posts by re-defining the genre examples inspiring D&D, both are really just denying the premise.

We won't fix the martial/caster gap by justifying it differently, and there's no need to justify fixing it, in the first place. No matter how much you want to limit martials on the grounds of Realism, there are no such grounds setting a low bar for the power of casters. Settle on martials everyone can agree on, nerf the casters down to that level. Even if that means they're just doing card tricks.

 

[Cadence]

Settle on martials everyone can agree on, nerf the casters down to that level. Even if that means they're just doing card tricks.

 

[overgeeked]

It's not a question of wanting that narrative. That narrative MUST exist if we accept the basic premises of the 5e rules.

A 20th level champion fighter, armed with only a greatsword and armor, no magical items, can kill 10 grizzly bears. Relatively comfortably, actually. (Feel free to run the combat simulation if you don't believe me.) That is an impossible task for anyone with the capabilities of a mundane Earth human, no matter how skilled or trained. Ergo, a 20th level fighter is a supernatural (or at least preternatural) being.

Since none of the class features or subclass features explain this capability as an exception to the setting logic, the core, inescapable premise of leveling in D&D is that leveling turns a mortal into a supernatural being.

To be honest, I'm not sure I really care if the martials get the tag "mundane" or "supernatural." I only care about them having rough mechanical parity with casters. The individual table can decide how mundane or magical their martials are.

 

[mamba]

Which brings up a whole other long drawn out version of the same discussion. What's appropriate for a source for D&D?

the first question is, do they need to change at all? I am not sure Lord of the Rings and Conan are no longer a good baseline.

If your answer is yes, then the search can begin…

But, like most "discussions" about this kind of thing, people put their goals first so want a curated list of sources that they think are "appropriate" because those sources reinforce their preferences for the game.

how do you decide what appropriate sources would be? Popularity in movies of the last 5 years to 10 years?

Let’s say that you objectively arrive at ‘MCU and anime should be the sources’ (however you managed that…), how far are you going to change D&D to get there? How much of your existing audience are you willing to leave behind to get where you assume a new audience is? Why aren’t more people playing such games already if that were what they are looking for? It’s not like they do not exist…

I have a feeling that you have the same problem you say everyone else has as well. You go from what you want to a rationale for it