D&D 5E Out of Combat Utility Analysis

[Nagol]

5E may change this, but in most older editions, magic items favor the noncaster. They allow access to abilities that are otherwise reserved for casters, and things like +1 weapons boost the stats of classes who rely heavily on "high numbers" (attack bonus, damage rolls, hit points, skill bonuses) to do their thing*.

As for monsters, that will indeed make a difference. Mostly it's a question of how monster saves compare to monster AC/hit points. Monsters with good saves and poor AC/hit points favor the fighter; monsters with good AC/hit points and bad saves favor the wizard, and to a lesser extent the cleric. We have a few data points, but not enough yet to judge the whole.



Why do you expect to see more spells added to Basic, but not more class options?

[SIZE=-2]*If you think high-level 3E was a caster's paradise with magic items, try it without! The wizard loses a couple spells per day and has a few points knocked off her save DCs; annoying but tolerable. Without the full Christmas tree of magic weapons, armor, and stat boosters, the fighter deflates like a popped balloon. "Wizard's lackey and pack mule" becomes "wizard's Chia pet."[/SIZE]

3.X was the exception, it is true. The changes to item creation, item costing and fungibility, skewed magic item acquisition and reliance away from non-casters and provided a strong table focus on acquiring the "big 6". I remember the point when that snapped into focus in my first 3.X campaign. The player found a very powerful, very useful magic item (Mirror of Mental Prowess) ... and promptly went to town and sold it, split the cash, and went shopping "for the things they needed". Well, the non-casters went shopping. The casters decided to hunker down for a month or so and simply build items.

The cost of non-combat abilities was insanely high in a relative sense (because of the geometric nature of magic item costing) in 3.X as well.

I expect more spells to be added to the standard game -- not to Basic. I figure that section of Basic is baked and done save for "living system" changes.

I expect the player will be presented with more options during character design in standard, but if the player chooses human fighter (champion) it'll look like the Basic version and if the player chooses high-elf wizard(evoker) it'll look like the Basic version. The difference come in where the evoker then gets to pick spells from B+S spells in standard versus B spells in Basic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why do you expect to see more spells added to Basic, but not more class options?

It doesn't really matter if class options are added. They're permanent choices and you have a very limited number of them.

Spells, on the other hand, add options to existing characters and cost those characters next-to-nothing.

This is kind of the central problem.

 

[Dausuul]

It doesn't really matter if class options are added. They're permanent choices and you have a very limited number of them.

Spells, on the other hand, add options to existing characters and cost those characters next-to-nothing.

True. If there is a steady influx of new spells and class options to Basic D&D, that will favor the caster. However, I don't really expect to see such an influx. The impression I have is that Basic D&D will remain a fairly limited core; otherwise, how is WotC supposed to sell splatbooks? More of a concern is what Nagol brought up. If you're playing in the larger game, where splatbooks do keep adding options and spells, what then?

With the wizard, I can see solutions. A wizard can't just write down new spells in her spellbook any time WotC puts out a splatbook with spells in it. You have to either gain the spell through level-up (in which case it is one of those limited permanent choices), or track down another wizard who knows the spell and get access to that wizard's spellbook. This can be balanced by giving noncasters a way to similarly expand their abilities, through contacts, guilds, followers, and training from masters. To keep it fair, noncasters need greater access to these things than casters get, but that's doable.

(This won't exist in Basic, but if the Basic spell list remains static, that doesn't matter.)

The cleric is more of a challenge, since clerics don't have to do anything to expand their spell access. Simply by virtue of a new splatbook being allowed into the campaign, all clerics get a power-up.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This can be balanced by giving noncasters a way to similarly expand their abilities, through contacts, guilds, followers, and training from masters. To keep it fair, noncasters need greater access to these things than casters get, but that's doable.

If that is actually a thing that is in the D&D rules, post-PHB and DMG, I will be quite impressed.

Training from Masters has always been something too rarely invoked in D&D, because it's a great reason to give non-magic characters more options.

 

[bert1000]

So, in summation:

a)Unified conflict resolution

or

b) Nerf the hell out of spells or codify/limit their scope

or

c) Open up the fiat ability of spellcasting to everyone by giving mundanes abilities like @Quickleaf 's Schrodinger's Rogue above.

Or.

d) Live with the consequences of inferior mundane characters. The problem is that several folks would rather live with inferior mundane characters than implement any of the above problem-solvers.

I think this is a pretty good summary of the solution set. My take is

a) is unlikely for D&D since part of the D&D identity seems to be detailed combat and magic subsystems with lots of fiddly bits. We have systems like FATE that we can use to play D&D like fantasy with a unified mechanic.

b) has been done a little in 5e but not to the extent of 4e. Still it's something.

c) has never been given an honest shot in D&D and I'm not sure why. Part of it might be the reluctance to go into the fiat / narrative/ abstract type abilities. Because it is much easier to build cool class features this way.

There is no good reason non casters couldn't get non combat features at levels 1,3,5, etc. that are picked from a list. A list that can be added to by future supplements just like spells.

Why couldn't the developer's come up with some common non combat adventuring goals and figure out some class features that would allow non casters to contribute to those goals in cool ways akin to the power of spells?

We can hope there is something like this in the PHB or DMG but I don't have a lot of hope. Why wouldn't you test something like this out in the playtest?


d) I'm willing to live with some imbalance and am ok if the 'mundane' characters can't do everything the casters can do. But please let the mundanes have things they can do to really impact the outcome in the other pillars, even if the casters can do it too.

I don't think I would care that the caster can dominate somone if my reputation as a warrior allows the party an audience and influence with the king, if up and coming knights flock to my banner, and members of the opposite sex swoon in my presence. I am getting some of the influence of dominate through other means.

I don't think I would care that the caster can scry if my dealings as a rogue meant I had built up a spy network so vast and powerful (e.g., Littlefinger, Varys) that I could find out information and the whereabouts of anyone, if I could easily slip a double agent into any organization, etc.

It's totally doable and would be great fun.