D&D 5E The core issue of the martial/caster gap is just the fundamental design of d20 fantasy casters.

[Tony Vargas]

There is no gameplay, nor skill tied to rolling a 17 or better on a die.

yet that's what armed combat and skill use boil down to in D&D.... when there even are skills...

The idea of knock removing/undermining a challenge, requires that the intended "challenge" be "roll good," and that's not engaging or interesting gameplay. I would rather play the game where the only way to open unlocked doors is the knock spell, and figuring out which two doors you really want open today, or in a 5e spell paradigm, if you can afford to open them all them but do all your fighting with cantrips, is the gameplay loop.

True, in D&D, it's less that spells negate challenges as it is managing spells to achieve objective is the challenge.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As someone who appreciates actual simulationism I prefer not to design my worlds round a single class.

Who says you have to? Design around the whole world, including magic. Do the work if it matters to you. It certainly matters to me.

Also, I do not appreciate the "No True Scotsman" thing there. You're better than that.

 

[ECMO3]

But they don't have to be arduous.

The reason we see the arduous means coming up is because this is an old-school leaning board.

i think anything that restricts choice will be unpopular and viewed as arduous, even by people who it does not effect.

if you are talking about a closed game among friends and after a campaign you agree to something like subclass spell lists it will work fine. if tou are talking about trying to gather strangers for a game at a club or online people will turn away from such rules i think.

to illustrate this, one easy and non-arduous way to close the gap is just make fighters half casters. That would be easy to implement but a lot of the people calling for a gap solution would be unsatisfied with this soultion even though it is easy.

 

[Vaalingrade]

to illustrate this, one easy and non-arduous way to close the gap is just make fighters half casters. That would be easy to implement but a lot of the people calling for a gap solution would be unsatisfied with this soultion even though it is easy.

How about allowing discrete abilities that aren't spells so they don't have to be casters to get capabilities?

 

[Voadam]

Cool. One of the reasons this was less of an issue in the TSR editions was that magic-user didn't get free reign on the spell list when they got new spells. Bring back "chance to know spell" rolls and sprinkle some scrolls in the treasure hordes!

But remember TSR specialist wizards did get automatic spells at leveling and TSR said that PCs picking them was a valid option.

Whenever a specialist reaches a new level, he automatically gains one spell of his school to add to his spell books. This spell can be selected by the DM or he can allow the player to pick. No roll for learning the spell need be made. It is assumed that the character has discovered this new spell during the course of his research and study.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Who says you have to? Design around the whole world, including magic. Do the work if it matters to you. It certainly matters to me.

Also, I do not appreciate the "No True Scotsman" thing there. You're better than that.

In short you want all D&D worlds to use the same magic - or D&D to be restricted to a tiny number of worlds.

I don't think e.g. Eberron and Greyhawk should have similar amounts of accessibility to spells.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But remember TSR specialist wizards did get automatic spells at leveling and TSR said that PCs picking them was a valid option.

Whenever a specialist reaches a new level, he automatically gains one spell of his school to add to his spell books. This spell can be selected by the DM or he can allow the player to pick. No roll for learning the spell need be made. It is assumed that the character has discovered this new spell during the course of his research and study.

2e started relaxing the restrictions. Perhaps they shouldn't have.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In short you want all D&D worlds to use the same magic - or D&D to be restricted to a tiny number of worlds.

I don't think e.g. Eberron and Greyhawk should have similar amounts of accessibility to spells.

I don't understand what you're saying. If you want the world to have easier or harder magic, make that happen, or use a setting where it works that way. Maybe being a wizard is easier in some worlds, and harder in others? If in one world it's more rewarding to play a caster, guess what? You're going to see more casters. That's part of the character of the setting.

 

[Xetheral]

There is no gameplay, nor skill tied to rolling a 17 or better on a die.

yet that's what armed combat and skill use boil down to in D&D.... when there even are skills...

I think this is a good example of why the martial/caster debate is so intractable.

If armed combat and skill use at one table "boils down" to the ability to roll high enough on a die, but at another table armed combat and skill use "boils down" to something else (e.g. the players' in-combat IC choices, or the players' out-of-combat IC choices, or the players' OOC build choices, or the DM's adventure design choices, etc.) then the experience of the martial/caster divide is inescapably going to vary from table to table.

And if we're all having different experiences, we certainly aren't going to agree on what issues need to be solved and what solutions would best solve them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If armed combat and skill use at one table "boils down" to the ability to roll high enough on a die, but at another table armed combat and skill use "boils down" to something else (e.g. the players' in-combat IC choices, or the players' out-of-combat IC choices, or the players' OOC build choices, or the DM's adventure design choices, etc.) then the experience of the martial/caster divide is inescapably going to vary from table to table.

The mechanics of combat and skill checks in 5e are the d20. In combat, it's all pretty defined, there's a limited number of options, they're resolved with d20 checks, AC and such are known monster quantities, decisions made in combat may give you advantage or disadvantage, there's the added factor of a damage roll and that's about it. With Skills, there's no initiative order or damage rolls, but you can declare an action that the DM may simply deem successful, so that's something to work towards to avoid resting it all on the d20.

So, yes, regardless of table variance, the system boils combat and skills down to d20 checks. The DM may override the system, is essentially encouraged to bypass it as a matter of course in the case of skills, but that's what the system is. Roll a d20 + bonuses vs a DC. Indeed, that's D&D/d20's claim to rules-lite simplicity. That's why it seems so hard for the designers to 'buff' martials in some way other than bigger numbers - because they're ultimately just numbers.

Spell, OTOH, do what they say they do. That may be an attack roll and damage roll. It may be a saving throw. It may be a damage roll with a save for half. It may be just a damage roll. It may be text describing something that just plain happens every time. And, depending on what you declare you're doing with it, it may accomplish something beyond that in the DM's judgement, too.