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

[Baron Opal II]

I may not

Thru the editions....

I meant the fighter abilities.

 

[Baron Opal II]

In general the parties to this discussion thus far have not cared about what level a character is.

I do, and I think that it is key to the discussion. Why shouldn't a fighter be wholly mundane at 1st level, have a couple uncanny abilities at 5th, preternatural abilities at 12th, and frankly supernatural ones at 17th? Is it unreasonable for a fighter to move like a Wuxia fighter at first level? Certainly. At 12th level? Certainly not.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I do, and I think that it is key to the discussion. Why shouldn't a fighter be wholly mundane at 1st level, have a couple uncanny abilities at 5th, preternatural abilities at 12th, and frankly supernatural ones at 17th? Is it unreasonable for a fighter to move like a Wuxia fighter at first level? Certainly. At 12th level? Certainly not.

Sure. No disagreement out of me.

For my part, I am of the opinion that fantasy adventurers in a fantasy setting should be expected to engage in some fantastical exploits. I feel like these are table stakes for participation in a level-based fantasy roleplaying game.

I'm also not particular about applying a specific thematic justification for any such exploits, as I believe the players and DM can figure that stuff out if anyone at the table actually needs that level of justification.

Personally, I don't think most folks do or should need that level of justification..

Fantasy game...fantasy stuff.

Table stakes.

 

[Pedantic]

Sure. No disagreement out of me.

For my part, I am of the opinion that fantasy adventurers in a fantasy setting should be expected to engage in some fantastical exploits. I feel like these are table stakes for participation in a level-based fantasy roleplaying game.

On this point I certainly agree. It's just that it doesn't follow that a Fighter gets to do so.

I'm also not particular about applying a specific thematic justification for any such exploits, as I believe the players and DM can figure that stuff out if anyone at the table actually needs that level of justification.

Personally, I don't think most folks do or should need that level of justification..

Here you are demonstrably wrong. There's a solid core of people who object outright to fighters doing anything particularly exceptional. The fighter is often defined by being unexceptionable in that way, and when that was not the case, argument about that was the tip of the spear in the edition wars.

The fighter is defined by being normal. It is not given them to do things other people can't do. At best they just get to do those things a little better. That's the most archetypal thing about it; as soon as you start using other words for "warrior" you get a more of specific concept that's allowed to do more.

As for "should need" you don't really get to tell people about what they should want. Personally, I want the fighter to be killed and replaced with more specific archetypes that can scale appropriately without having to do this; there is nothing interesting about a class defined by its mundanity, and it's a pretty outdated fantasy tradition that separates force of arms from doing magic. Swordsmen coat their own blades in fire now and adventure for blades that cut concepts. "Being good at swords" must expand to mean "and thereby doing sword themed supernatural stuff" if it's going to keep up with wizards that can fly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. No disagreement out of me.

For my part, I am of the opinion that fantasy adventurers in a fantasy setting should be expected to engage in some fantastical exploits. I feel like these are table stakes for participation in a level-based fantasy roleplaying game.

I'm also not particular about applying a specific thematic justification for any such exploits, as I believe the players and DM can figure that stuff out if anyone at the table actually needs that level of justification.

Personally, I don't think most folks do or should need that level of justification..

Fantasy game...fantasy stuff.

Table stakes.

Given that are several D&D versions and variations that don't assume supernatural exploits on the part of all PCs, I just can't agree with that.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. But it should be absolutely clear that primacy is placed on it being a game. And verisimilitude is only attempted where it will not interfere with D&D being a game.

It's that kind of thinking that got us into this mess.

 

[Lanefan]

if the entire world has magic in it then i assume the people do too, i assume that the presense of magic in the people would naturally cause them to develop slightly differently from the people in the real world where magic isn't an environmental factor in their development, like my light/heavyworlder examples.

i said magic was an assumption of DnD worlds, you replied with:

so all the other stuff which is based on magic would therefore not exist in your world would it not?

I have it that mundane creatures (i.e. things that exist or have existed on Earth) are non-magical, and could survive if all magic suddenly left the game world. However, fantastic creatures - Elves, Dragons, Demons, Leprechauns, Giants, etc. etc. - require magic to survive and if deprived of it will more or less (depending on species) quickly sicken and die. In-game this means that an Elf, for example, who finds itself in a null-magic zone is in big trouble if it can't get out within a few minutes.

My first long campaign ended in just this way: magic was removed from the world and it became Earth-like, and all the magic-based creatures had to either leave that world (if they hadn't already) or perish.

 

[Lanefan]

By the rules of literally any edition of D&D the physical injury and recovery rules for any character from almost any source are closer to cartoon physics than they are to the real world.

1e would like a word. Absent magical healing, physical recovery in that system takes ages...maybe even longer than it might in real life. Hard to think of that as cartoon-y.

 

[Lanefan]

I am not telling you it isn't real or can't be done. I am telling you it isn't how D&D does it. And what I am doing here is pointing out what the rules of D&D 5e actually say. Which in this case is that an entire keg of gunpowder exploding within 10ft of you does 7d6 damage, DC12 dex save for half (and as such is less dangerous than the standard 20ft radius 8d6 fireball). Your average first level PC has in my experience a 50 % chance of making that saving throw (Dex being a favoured stat), and by about third level the question isn't whether if they are right next to a literal powder keg when it blows up whether they will be turned into kibble (that won't happen even to first level characters) but whether they will be conscious and able to keep fighting.

This is what the rules of D&D actually say.

Sometimes the written rules just need to be ignored in favour of common sense.

You can house rule otherwise. But any version of D&D 5e where the physics are realistic rather than where a character can basically be dropped from orbit and, after a simple and mundane medicine check can stand back up with zero broken bones is not one where realism is anything other than a collection of house rules.

I am not saying that you are wrong to want what you do. I own Torchbearer and multiple editions of both GURPS and WFRP. I am saying that the rules of D&D 5e are clear in what they present. And it is emphatically not real world physics.

Yes; and just because 5e says so doesn't mean 5e got it right, or that anyone has to believe it or adhere to it. Dropped from orbit? You ain't even gonna hit the ground, never mind get up afterwards, as you'll be melted to droplets and then evaporated long before you get within a mile of the surface.

As comes up so often IRL, if the rules are wrong then unquestioningly following them isn't a good look.

 

[Lanefan]

I want rules help with fiction, and no rules help with narrative. At all, if possible.

Sorry, but this one doesn't make sense to me. Aren't the fiction and the narrative one and the same?