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

[Mort]

Agreed; these discussion always seem to assume that spell casters are optimized for every encounter, when that is patently not the case. In fact, I think it is the fundamental design difference between spellcasters and martial classes: martial classes are optimized for most encounters but their options are relatively limited, while spellcasters are non-optimized for most encounters but their options are relatively vast.

Are we talking combat or one of the other pillars?

Regardless, 5e spellcasters have Plenty of general spells that apply to multiple situations. A 5e caster doesn't have to put all of their eggs in a particular basket - they can be decently prepared for an array of things.

And how exactly are martials "optimized for most encounters...?" I can see it with rogues between decent combat ability and good skills a rogue can do well in all three pillars (especially if the DM isn't being stingy with allowing skill use).

But fighter? Outside of combat, where I'll agree fighters are optimized in their relatively limited shtick (but it can be a good shtick), How are fighters in any way optimized? A player has to make some difficult calls for a fighter to even be able to contribute in social and exploration (often sacrificing a bit of combat effectiveness), something casters generally don't have to worry about.

 

[ECMO3]

Players tend not to complain about stuff that gives them more power.

True, but that is not what we have here because non-casters are generally not complaining either. A better analogy might be players tend not to complain about stuff that gives the party more power.

 

[Tony Vargas]

the fact that the designers just keep giving more and more power to casters

While that's consistently been the case through much of D&D's history, y'know what's even more consistent?

Removing restrictions/limitations from casters.

Like, unarguably, 3e made casters more powerful than ever before, and 5e made casters far more powerful than 4e. 2e raised non-/demi-human level limits on caster classes, which made some casters more powerful, but it also capped some spells, curtailing power slightly. 4e obviously had the intolerable effrontery to balance casters and non-casters. So caster power has not just been on a straight-line increase the whole time. It's had ups and downs.

Making casting easier, tho, has been very consistent in WotC's tenure. 3e made a lot of hard restrictions on casting more a matter of trade-offs, in particular, you could invest in skills like concentration and some feats, to optimize away all sorts of traditional downsides, like casting being interrupted for instance, or impossible while grappled, or impossible while wearing armor, etc... In 4e, while caster power was slashed, many of those traditional restrictions that 3e had made it easy to circumvent were wiped away almost entirely - some spells still provoked OAs, some powerful dailies required an action each round to sustain, but all the old no casting in armor, spell loss for interruption etc, were just gone. 5e did the impossible and further lightened casting burdens, everyone cast spontaneously, OAs for casting vanished, sustain became action-free concentration for simpler action enconomy and faster combat.

I couldn't call to mind changes 2e made, since I was using my own casting variants by then, so I'm going to forward-quote a later comment that gives an example:

2e initiative changes also made it much easier for a spellcaster to get off a spell in combat than it had been in 1e or B/X.

Thanks, Voadam.

There is a small minority of players who actually play Wizards, I think support for powerful Wizard it is far more than just the "Wizard fans".

I mean, nobody wants their PC overshadowed, and I think pointing at a segment of the fanbase 'wanting' excessively powerful characters is off, it's not a matter of blame, so much.

Rather, casters in general, and wizards (including 11th level magic-users, my fellow grognards) in particular, have been decidedly powerful for virtually the game's entire history. Getting accustomed to that is not, like, selfishly wanting your character to be more powerful than everyone else's. (I mean, it's like it in that it has that consequence, but it's not necessarily the implied selfish motivation)

 

[Scribe]

Most of the responses to all these threads and the fact that the designers just keep giving more and more power to casters suggests at least a majority hold exactly that position. Or at least the only people who's opinion counts, the designers.

Or the ones responding to surveys.

 

[TwoSix]

I did not say it is unanimous, if it was threads like this would not even exist. But I do think it is a majority of D&D fans, enough that it is a general position, vice a position of Wizard players specifically.

There is a small minority of players who actually play Wizards, I think support for powerful Wizard it is far more than just the "Wizard fans".

I do agree that there's a relatively large portion of the player base that likes the narrative of arcane supremacy, because it's such a familiar, comfortable one with decades of examples, even if they don't want to actually play a wizard themselves. I absolutely have some players at my tables who fall into this group.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There you have it.

Delete the Wizard.

It's the only way to get Big Robe out of the design process.

 

[Micah Sweet]

True, but that is not what we have here because non-casters are generally not complaining either. A better analogy might be players tend not to complain about stuff that gives the party more power.

Nah, players like party power, but IMO personal power matters personally. Non-casters would complain if their power was restricted, and rave if it was extended, just like everyone else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or the ones responding to surveys.

The tiny percentage that respond to surveys are the only ones the designers care about, and that only if it has a reasonable chance of affecting sales.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do agree that there's a relatively large portion of the player base that likes the narrative of arcane supremacy, because it's such a familiar, comfortable one with decades of examples, even if they don't want to actually play a wizard themselves. I absolutely have some players at my tables who fall into this group.

I have no problem with wizards being powerful. Eventually. When they leveled up some. Basically, TSR more or less had it right.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have no problem with wizards being powerful. Eventually. When they leveled up some. Basically, TSR more or less had it right.

TSR put more restrictions and limitations on the power of casters than WotC has. I'm not so sure it's the right solution, it's a solution that apparently couldn't stand the test of time.

I'm afraid it's just a matter of restrictions not being fun, or at least, not the right kind of fun. I found playing a magic-user back in the day an enjoyable challenge. You had the fun of casting just the right spell to really accomplish something cool - once in a while, when your had picked the right spells, and waited to use just the right one at just the right time... you also got a fair amount of frustration, that way. I'll bet you had similar experiences... I'd speculate that a lot of other once-long-ago players were entirely put off by that process.

Presumably a lot of newer players would have been too ... tho, again, it could just be a matter of what the community has become accustomed to over WotC's tenure.