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

[Gammadoodler]

It didn't sound to me like they were being relentlessly gamist. It sounded to me like they were just saying that if game rules are being used to argue a point then it is fair to use game rules to argue a point. It feels like an essay could be written somewhere about needed simplifications to make the game work vs. rules with more intentional diagetic connections.

Exactly this.

But to be even clearer..

In this instance what is happening is that one party, whose focus is on "narrative verisimilitude" is relying on the game mechanics as "evidence" for the way they've chosen to express the physical capabilities and limitations of the wide variety of fantasy races in the game as being fundamentally similar to RL humans.

No narrative evidence has been provided.
-------------
It will often occur that I'm in support of making a fun game first and letting the narrative spring from whatever comes out of that design.

But in this specific instance, I'm either
..seeking a less gamist response
Or...
..if we are going to use the game as evidence, use the whole game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

+-2 is "basically as competent". The only things that really mattered were things like Darkvision, Wings, or Powerful Build.

And the problem with the "just like the real world" approach is how ubiquitous magic has been in D&D since the specialist wizards in Unearthed Arcana started getting free spells at level up. In oD&D where all magic was divine or obtained through really dangerous adventuring archaeology "like the real world" made sense. Through the 2e period a magic-integral world like Eberron made more sense, and in 5e there are at most four classes that aren't outright casters.

I'll agree that 5e's magic is far too ubiquitous for my tastes.

 

[Aldarc]

Or people just need to stop pretending D&D isn't a game.

That sort of realism is a bridge too far.

 

[Tony Vargas]

in 5e there are at most four classes that aren't outright casters

EKs and ATs are outright casters, with slots and everything. So Fighter (ironically) and Thief are out.
Totem Barbarians are able to cast a handful of naturey spells as rituals, if using rituals doesn't make you a caster, and no non-PH Barbarians sub-class gets slots... that's one.
Monk sub-classes can use Ki to cast spells, it's outright called casting spells, buy it's not slots, if slots make the caster, that's two....

But, really, "All 5e classes can use spells" is a true statement, even before feats, MCing, race or background that might add some sort of casting.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Well, it used to be that they weren't, but then racial ASIs were removed...

To be clearer..

Since the idea was to craft game mechanics to suit a "realistic" view of what is going on in the setting, in this case, I was referring to the setting assumptions that are supposed to lead to "more realistic", "less immersion-breaking" game mechanics, not any existing mechanics.

 

[Lanefan]

And this..right here..is the most frustrating reply that I see whenever this dance starts.

Not only does it completely ignore all the many, many ways these creatures are different. It also presumes that the baseline is human when it could be any other race.

It could, but there needs to be a baseline somewhere as a starting point for comparison, and as we all know what Humans are they do seem to be the best species to use as that starting point.

 

[Gammadoodler]

It could, but there needs to be a baseline somewhere as a starting point for comparison, and as we all know what Humans are they do seem to be the best species to use as that starting point.

The only reason to need a baseline is if you plan to filter the game through an unnecessary realism filter in the first place. Otherwise, you just use the races as described.

EDIT: In either case, at the point you try to justify how human physical performance limitations should apply to the wildly varying PC race options, stop trying to sell me on how "realistic" or "immersive" it is.

It isn't. You just need it to make your game work and you don't want to do the additional work to think through what the "real" limitations for these races should be.

 

[Neonchameleon]

EKs and ATs are outright casters, with slots and everything. So Fighter (ironically) and Thief are out.

I don't mark a class out just because one of the subclasses is explicitly different from the others. (And I want a Barbarian warlock subclass with a pact blade, invocations, and pact magic). Fighter isn't out - Eldritch Knight is (and arguably Arcane Archer and Rune Knight).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't mark a class out just because one of the subclasses is explicitly different from the others. (And I want a Barbarian warlock subclass with a pact blade, invocations, and pact magic). Fighter isn't out - Eldritch Knight is (and arguably Arcane Archer and Rune Knight).

Nod. When you're looking for not-magic in 5e, you need to go to the sub-class level.

 

[mamba]

while ideas like those do reduce the overall utility of magic, in theory, they also make it more and more central to the play of the game...

how so? It already is central, I do not see imposing restrictions making it more central, if anything it makes magic less central, unless you are purely focused on word count