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

Where you get your powers does not really stand on its own as an archetype. Is there a meaningful difference between "I was born a mutant with web-slinging and wall-crawling powers like a spider" and "I was bitten by a radioactive spider so now I have web-slinging and wall-crawling powers" to justify two different classes?

There are so many more interesting class configurations that WotC could have chosen but didn't and it seems that it's mostly down to "tradition" than anything else.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Where you get your powers does not really stand on its own as an archetype. Is there a meaningful difference between "I was born a mutant with web-slinging and wall-crawling powers like a spider" and "I was bitten by a radioactive spider so now I have web-slinging and wall-crawling powers" to justify two different classes?

There are so many more interesting class configurations that WotC could have chosen but didn't and it seems that it's mostly down to "tradition" than anything else.
That's fair. It only really matters if the source of your powers has some justifiable loop in play to keep or advance them.
 

That's what I said like 20 pages ago. Warlocks should be subclasses of Wizards, Sorcerers and Clerics, depending on if they borrow, learn or get power trough body changes.
The problem is the wizard chassis doesn't work for those other ones. They have their different casting and different sub-class designs, with warlocks in particualr being one of the best received ones, especially compared to wizard. Mechanically there's enough differentiation there that putting them all under a single umbrella is either going to erode the umbrella away to irrelevancy because its too broad, or hamper all three of them with expectations of the other.

But back on thread topic, I've figured the simplest and easiest way to sort one of this thread's bigger issues: Add a cut-off point for where we just throw realism out the window entirely

"Once you hit level 5, you are in the realm of the fantastic and beyond any real life human who has ever existed"

Simple. Quick. If folks want to limit stuff to realism, then they are specifically told 5 is the cap. Once you hit level 6, real life is out the window

And. I'm sorry but as the prehistoric animal nerd....

and yet Earth produced these
Okay so when talking about these in comparison to giants we firstly need to sort of talk about the fact that no mammals have ever gotten to the size, on land, of the sauropods. Barely any dinosaurs made it and the only comparable one, Shauntungosaurus, while huge compared to us was only about the size of a small sauropod. Even the biggest land mammals, Paraceratherium and Paleoloxodon, are still dwarfed. The only comparables are the whales who don't need to handle the whole weight thing.

The thing with dinosaurs is they have a massive system of air sacks throughout their body, something mammals lack, and it makes comparing them not really viable simple due to the fact we're built completely different. The human bioplan starts failing around 7 feet, and that's reachable by humans regularly who have a whole entire host of medical issuues as a result. Scaled up to giant levels? It wouldn't function. If you want to try to get it to function, you're going to need much wider legs for a start, but they sure wouldn't just look like 'a guy but tall'

As for dragons, let's firstly ignore the hexapod issue and the fact that, as designed, every single D&D dragon doesn't have enough muscles for its wings. However bringing in Quetzalcoatlus is never a good idea on this because the thing about this giraffe height pterosaur? It was light. Like, despite being the size of a giraffe, even the best estimates are it was only a fifth of the weight. This once again is due to pterosaurs sharing similar bone structures

So basically, giants and dragons cannot function as designed, unless you're taking from real creatures, and sort of imply the setting of D&D is not able to be just compared to real life
 


Where you get your powers does not really stand on its own as an archetype. Is there a meaningful difference between "I was born a mutant with web-slinging and wall-crawling powers like a spider" and "I was bitten by a radioactive spider so now I have web-slinging and wall-crawling powers"

I mean, it matters a HUGE amount in the Marvel comics universe if one is a mutant or not...

to justify two different classes?

... and now I am imagining the in Marvel universe version of ENWorld.having this argument, and I think I will stop before I start trying to figure who on here would say what about realism vs pragmatism vs getting modded.
 

Okay so when talking about these in comparison to giants we firstly need to sort of talk about the fact that no mammals have ever gotten to the size, on land, of the sauropods. Barely any dinosaurs made it and the only comparable one, Shauntungosaurus, while huge compared to us was only about the size of a small sauropod. Even the biggest land mammals, Paraceratherium and Paleoloxodon, are still dwarfed. The only comparables are the whales who don't need to handle the whole weight thing.

The thing with dinosaurs is they have a massive system of air sacks throughout their body, something mammals lack, and it makes comparing them not really viable simple due to the fact we're built completely different. The human bioplan starts failing around 7 feet, and that's reachable by humans regularly who have a whole entire host of medical issuues as a result. Scaled up to giant levels? It wouldn't function. If you want to try to get it to function, you're going to need much wider legs for a start, but they sure wouldn't just look like 'a guy but tall'
Sure, but giant also isn't just an upscaled human. Or I don't think it should be. I like how in Game of Throne they gave the giants thicker, elephant like limbs and I've done something similar in concept sketches I did for giants in my world. I think a RL creature closest to a giant was megatherium. A mammal and could walk on two legs. Sure, only 12 tall, so still quite a bit smaller than smallest giants, but I don't think 20sih foot giant with appropriately giantised anatomy is completely implausible.

As for dragons, let's firstly ignore the hexapod issue and the fact that, as designed, every single D&D dragon doesn't have enough muscles for its wings. However bringing in Quetzalcoatlus is never a good idea on this because the thing about this giraffe height pterosaur? It was light. Like, despite being the size of a giraffe, even the best estimates are it was only a fifth of the weight. This once again is due to pterosaurs sharing similar bone structures
Yeah, dragons at the sizes described in the D&D cannot function by normal biology. Perhaps the smaller ones could, but not the big ones, and even then they couldn't look like they're depicted in the art.


Nothing really to do with the thread topic though, just found this more interesting than the endless bickering about fighters and wizards... :shrug
 

The thing with dinosaurs is they have a massive system of air sacks throughout their body, something mammals lack
I know, but who knows what a dragon or giant looks like internally… Apart from that I use the argument I hear here so often when it comes to making martials into superheroes: we have all kinds of fantastical stuff, why not dragons and giants…
 

We already were over this, you don't agree, but to me the similarity is glaringly and hilariously obvious.
The fact that two things are similar doesn’t mean they have to be identical. I can give my dex fighter a rapier and a brash attitude and call him a swashbuckler, but I can also build a rogue with a swashbuckler subclass.

It’s kind of strange to take the position that there is only one type of pact in the universe, and it involves granting invocations and Pact Magic.

Particularly, since RAW, there are at least 2, with boons in the DMG also being bestowed by powerful creatures for service.
 

I mean, it matters a HUGE amount in the Marvel comics universe if one is a mutant or not...
Ennhh.. kind of..

Like it totally matters from a story/social interactions perspective. And there are a few mutant-specific pathogens that have been around over the years, but from an 'abilities' perspective (which is what I believe Aldarc was getting at) it usually not that big a deal.

Like if you took someone with Captain America's abilities and someone with Wolverine's abilities, would you be able to say definitively which one was the mutant?

Same with Colossus and the Thing. Ikaris vs Cyclopse, etc.
 

Ennhh.. kind of..

Like it totally matters from a story/social interactions perspective. And there are a few mutant-specific pathogens that have been around over the years, but from an 'abilities' perspective (which is what I believe Aldarc was getting at) it usually not that big a deal.

Like if you took someone with Captain America's abilities and someone with Wolverine's abilities, would you be able to say definitively which one was the mutant?

Same with Colossus and the Thing. Ikaris vs Cyclopse, etc.

Right.

That's what I was trying to get at with my next comment in that post about imagining people in the Marvel universe arguing about whether they really needed two classes or not. (I should have been clearer).
 

Remove ads

Top