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

[mamba]

people keep raising Thor and Hulk - the thing is that neither are good models of whats being discussed as Thor is a god with a magic weapon and the Hulk is a monster.
What is being considered is Captain America or Shang Chi or Batman.

I was fine with Captain America and Batman, so I cannot very well list them as examples of what I do not want… Ironman and Dr Strange then ?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The first two, yes...the third one less so since the 20th level fighter will be able to fight 10 grizzlies and win the vast majority of the time.

It's not killing the animals over time that's supernatural, it's being able to stand toe-to-toe with multiples of them and not immediately sustain killing wounds.

No matter how improbable a feat, if it is possible, it's not supernatural.

IMHO, superhuman not supernatural is quite sufficient for fantasy characters who aren't 'magical,' tho. Incredible skill, extreme luck, or whatever, are just alternatives. Whatever appeals.

And, if nothing appeals, if only start, reality-isn't-real-real-enough forced mundanity is acceptable, well, casters can do parlor tricks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I don't think the game should require you to work out the logic of its gameplay conclusions so you can have a satisfying narrative. Overt supernatural effects are explicitly explained somewhere in the text. If as you say the abilities of high level martials are also supernatural, why should they get a pass on having an explicit explanation?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

You realize you would also have to get all the caster fans to agree with this? That works for your own table, not so much for anything beyond that, at least as you state it.

 

[Cadence]

No matter how improbable a feat, if it is possible, it's not supernatural.

It feels like replicability is a thing too. If someone survives falling 100' unaided to the hard ground relatively unhurt irl, that's pretty astounding. If someone repeatedly falls from tall heights unaided to the hard ground unscathed, then that feels different to me.

 

[Pedantic]

Sure. I care only in the sense that "martials aren't supernatural, but casters are" is used as the justification to retain a martial/caster gap. I know plenty of people, both online and IRL, who think casters being supreme at upper levels is a feature, not a bug.

There's another sensible takeaway from that position: don't print a non-supernatural class. If a fighter is defined by not having a power source, then it is not an appropriate archetype to support alongside classes that do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The book already says that magic is found in every living thing, why isn't that enough of an explanation?

PH page 205

"The worlds with in the D&D multiverse are magical places. All existence is suffused with magical power, and potential energy lies untapped in every rock, stream, and living creature, and even in the air itself. Raw magic is the stuff of creation, the mute and mindless will of existence, permeating every bit of matter and present in every manifestation of energy throughout the multiverse."

Because they don't apply that philosophy to characters who don't use magic.

 

[Raiztt]

"...mindless will of existence..."

Absolutely painful writing. Something a highschooler would write. I weep.

(He's quoting the PHB and I am criticizing that, not him, mods. So don't get your knickers in a twist)

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think the game should require you to work out the logic of its gameplay conclusions so you can have a satisfying narrative. Overt supernatural effects are explicitly explained somewhere in the text. If as you say the abilities of high level martials are also supernatural, why should they get a pass on having an explicit explanation?

Whether they have a pass or not is immaterial to me.

I'm just saying the narrative that a 20th level fighter is just a bad dude rescuing the president isn't feasible. A high level character, of any class, is "something else" that transcends mundane origins. It's inherent to the presentation of what high-level characters do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To me it is pretty plain that D&D never has tried to emulate actual reality, it emulates fantasy stories and myths. So in real life you cannot train hard enough that you could cut a boulder in twain with a sword, jump on top of the castle wall, lift an ox or slay a fire breathing lizard size of a buss. But in stories you can, so you also can in D&D. Or at least you should.