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

[Voadam]

And thus if I need a Warlord type of character, I use the Bard class chassis and just change what was written to describe what these features are-- swapping out 'spell' and 'magic' for a pair of non-magical words instead.

And choose to only use bard powers that are consistent with warlord type ones?

A bard's faerie fire spell does not quite narratively work with non-magical words. Maybe some sort of alchemical solution (and then there are concentration issues), but not just non-magical words.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And choose to only use bard powers that are consistent with warlord type ones?

A bard's faerie fire spell does not quite narratively work with non-magical words. Maybe some sort of alchemical solution (and then there are concentration issues), but not just non-magical words.

Spotter. You squint real hard and pick out the Predator shimmer in the space, then call out its position to the rest of the crew.

 

[Hussar]

Huh.

Spells in presentation as in discrete effects gated by level where the player chooses from a curated list at certain points as they level up.

This so reminds me of something but I just can’t put my forefinger on it.

This is an awful lot of verbiage to recreate the 4e a/e/d/u system while not calling it such.

 

[CreamCloud0]

They essentially can be. All you need to do is write in the 'Rage' section "The barbarian can cast the Rage spell a number of times per day equal to the Rages column". And just translate the Rage's mechanics into the spell block format. Voila! Rage is now a spell, just cast in a different way than the spell slot format the other casters all use.

This is why I've never gone along with the whole "too much magic in D&D" complaint... whether something is a spell or not, or magic or not, is entirely just down to how the mechanic gets written in the book. You write the mechanic without using the word 'spell' or 'magic'... then the ability isn't. You write it with, then it is. And if that's all it takes... just reading how an ability or feature is described... then I simply just change how it's written for myself. And thus if I need a Warlord type of character, I use the Bard class chassis and just change what was written to describe what these features are-- swapping out 'spell' and 'magic' for a pair of non-magical words instead.

i can't wait until 'getting angry' and 'sneak attack' can be counterspelled, no, i don't want everything turned into a spell.

 

[Voadam]

i can't wait until 'getting angry' and 'sneak attack' can be counterspelled, no, i don't want everything turned into a spell.

I am really not a fan of the vancian x per day resource management paradigm.

Ideally for me paladins would be built around magical powers. Not x/day magical resources.

 

[DEFCON 1]

i can't wait until 'getting angry' and 'sneak attack' can be counterspelled, no, i don't want everything turned into a spell.

'Counterspell' and 'Anti-Magic Field' are the two most overused complaints and so-called "reasons" why things can't be magic, here on the boards . It's ridiculous. There are 10,000% more complaints about the possibility of so-called magic being "dispelled" or "countered" then ever actually occur within the game itself. When's the last campaign you actually saw something with "Anti-magic"? My guess is... the only time is when you faced a Beholder. Despite all the claims to the contrary... 99.99% of DMs just don't plop down random anti-magic fields into their campaigns or have their NPCs dispel all kinds of meaningless magical effects, because it's dumb and a waste of resources.

If you actually play at a table with a DM who would spend their NPCs' precious actions and reactions on dispelling or countering simplistic 1st and 2nd level buff spells (of which Rage and Sneak Attack would be, were they magic)... you should be wiping the floor of that campaign. Because that DM's tactical acumen is exceedingly suspect. "Let's see... I could spend one of my two precious 3rd level spell slots of mine to Counterspell that Cone of Cold coming at me... OR I can Dispel that Ranger's Hunter's Mark buff. I wonder what the better play?"

 

[M_Natas]

'Counterspell' and 'Anti-Magic Field' are the two most overused complaints and so-called "reasons" why things can't be magic, here on the boards . It's ridiculous. There are 10,000% more complaints about the possibility of so-called magic being "dispelled" or "countered" then ever actually occur within the game itself. When's the last campaign you actually saw something with "Anti-magic"? My guess is... the only time is when you faced a Beholder. Despite all the claims to the contrary... 99.99% of DMs just don't plop down random anti-magic fields into their campaigns or have their NPCs dispel all kinds of meaningless magical effects, because it's dumb and a waste of resources.

If you actually play at a table with a DM who would spend their NPCs' precious actions and reactions on dispelling or countering simplistic 1st and 2nd level buff spells (of which Rage and Sneak Attack would be, were they magic)... you should be wiping the floor of that campaign. Because that DM's tactical acumen is exceedingly suspect. "Let's see... I could spend one of my two precious 3rd level spell slots of mine to Counterspell that Cone of Cold coming at me... OR I can Dispel that Ranger's Hunter's Mark buff. I wonder what the better play?"

I mean, it would use up caster spellslots, so that helps balancing the game.

 

[Hussar]

Let’s be honest here, baddies never have enough actions to make counterspell a viable strategy. It’s entirely plausible that the pcs are casting three to five spells per round. Nothing has that many reactions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And choose to only use bard powers that are consistent with warlord type ones?

A bard's faerie fire spell does not quite narratively work with non-magical words. Maybe some sort of alchemical solution (and then there are concentration issues), but not just non-magical words.

Or what I would actually do if I was playing a non-magical Warlord using the Bard chassis... is just strip all the flavor off that spell (were I to take it) and use it strictly for its useful mechanics only.

I grant all allies Advantage on attacks against a group of enemies within 20 feet of each other up to 60' away from me if they fail a DEX save.

There we go. Warlord ability. And I would refluff it with whatever sort of inspirational ra-ra flavor I'd want.

Now of course you will ask about the whole "glowing lights" thing. And frankly, I would just ignore that part of the spell, because it's merely a ribbon ability attached to the actual useful mechanic of granting allies Advantage against a bunch of enemies. So I couldn't care less whether or not those enemies were outlined in green or purple, that's not why I'm using the ability (spell)... so I'd just pretend like that part of the ability didn't exist. Not missing much.

And I'm sure you will ask about the use of the DEX save for a 'Warlord ability', rather than a WIS or CHA save. And that's one where I'd just handwave it and not even bother trying to invent some sort of reason to justify why it's a DEX save. I'm not going to try to game the game by asking the DM to change the type of save it is just to make it feel "correct"... rather, since it's a simplistic and fast game mechanic that will be over and done with in three seconds once the DM rolls the saves, we can all just ignore what type of save it actually was.

Long story short... the actual useful mechanic of granting allies Advantage on attacks against a small group of enemies can easily be a Warlord ability, so were I to use it, that's what I'd do.

 

[Vaalingrade]

'Counterspell' and 'Anti-Magic Field' are the two most overused complaints and so-called "reasons" why things can't be magic, here on the boards . It's ridiculous. There are 10,000% more complaints about the possibility of so-called magic being "dispelled" or "countered" then ever actually occur within the game itself. When's the last campaign you actually saw something with "Anti-magic"? My guess is... the only time is when you faced a Beholder. Despite all the claims to the contrary... 99.99% of DMs just don't plop down random anti-magic fields into their campaigns or have their NPCs dispel all kinds of meaningless magical effects, because it's dumb and a waste of resources.

If you actually play at a table with a DM who would spend their NPCs' precious actions and reactions on dispelling or countering simplistic 1st and 2nd level buff spells (of which Rage and Sneak Attack would be, were they magic)... you should be wiping the floor of that campaign. Because that DM's tactical acumen is exceedingly suspect. "Let's see... I could spend one of my two precious 3rd level spell slots of mine to Counterspell that Cone of Cold coming at me... OR I can Dispel that Ranger's Hunter's Mark buff. I wonder what the better play?"

If people get to complain on the very fake line of taunting people being mind control, I get to point out the actual rules that made 'own a book' something that could be counterspelled.

Just use the spell structure without it being magical. Simple as that.