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

[Micah Sweet]

That's a good point. If you're going to give that kind of stuff to the wizard, you should probably serve some additional plot meat to other classes as well, like secret martial techniques and hidden empowering altars and stuff like that.

Absolutely. And the game should be telling DMs to put all that stuff in.

 

[Vaalingrade]

As someone with narrativist leanings, I find that to be only a good thing. More focus on player quests, less focus on embedded storylines.

As also a narrativist, I don't find this to be a player quest, it's a class quest. It's like making the fighter take up three sessions at the start to get a basic sword. My philosophy is that you should never be blocked from being your class. Nothing in the class should itself impose on the story.

If the wizard wants a special spell that's not in the book, that's good! They shouldn't have to quest for basic competence.

 

[Alzrius]

As also a narrativist, I don't find this to be a player quest, it's a class quest. It's like making the fighter take up three sessions at the start to get a basic sword. My philosophy is that you should never be blocked from being your class. Nothing in the class should itself impose on the story.

If the wizard wants a special spell that's not in the book, that's good! They shouldn't have to quest for basic competence.

Leaving aside the (fairly significant) wiggle room as to what constitutes "basic competence," I see this as a feature rather than a bug. If the wizard wants to craft a wand of fireballs, it's a lot more fun to tell them they need to quest for a phoenix feather, a scale from an adult red dragon, and the bone of an elder fire giant, than it is to say that they need to spend eighteen days and twenty-five thousand gp. The former results in new, player-driven adventures for those items, while the latter doesn't contribute much except to enforce eighteen days of downtime for the whole party, where everyone else has to figure out what they're doing in the meantime.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I honestly don't see a need for Knock to exist in the game at all. I'd be happy to take it out at my table, and my preferred version of D&D doesn't have it.

I imagine it's partially for legacy sake, and partially for allowing tables to not require certain classes be in the party to be able to accomplish goals.

Most tables will have a Rogue in the group, or if not, another character that has proficiency in Thieves' Tools... and thus most locks will get a chance to be picked or opened. And if that means most tables thus never have a character take Knock, that's cool. No harm, no foul. But there will always be that one table for whom having Knock at their disposal is a godsend, so I can see why WotC wouldn't bother removing it entirely from the game. It's a standard D&D spell over multiple editions, it has worth to some tables, so why take it out? It's not hurting anyone being there. And even if some DMs just don't like the spell, they can always remove it from their own game as needed, they don't need WotC to do it for them.

 

[Alzrius]

I imagine it's partially for legacy sake, and partially for allowing tables to not require certain classes be in the party to be able to accomplish goals.

This is true, and to my mind speaks to a deeper issue with the design philosophy around introducing resolutions for particular challenges in the game.

One thing that comes up repeatedly with regard to D&D is that mysteries are often binary in their presentation; either the PCs have something at their disposal which can completely negate the challenge ("I cast speak with dead on the corpse and ask him who killed him") or they don't have what they need and can't progress (i.e. only one party member can check for tracks, and flubs their skill roll).

The problem is often seen that trying to alleviate the former can often lead to the latter, where preemptive means of making sure the PCs are equipped to handle certain things that come up in the adventure over-correct in how much versatility they offer, essentially negating challenges rather than preparing the PCs to face them.

At least on paper, there are several ways around this, though they all have their own issues. For instance, reducing things from automatically working to offering a check (e.g. knock allows for a roll to succeed, rather than automatically unlocking the door), which has issues of putting the PCs right back to square one if the check fails, to having the GM preemptively allow for multiple resolutions to problems the PCs encounter (e.g. the popular three clue rule), but which then puts a heavier prep burden on the GM.

As with so many things, there are no right answers here, only preferences regarding ease, style, and numerous other factors.

 

[TwoSix]

As also a narrativist, I don't find this to be a player quest, it's a class quest. It's like making the fighter take up three sessions at the start to get a basic sword. My philosophy is that you should never be blocked from being your class. Nothing in the class should itself impose on the story.

If the wizard wants a special spell that's not in the book, that's good! They shouldn't have to quest for basic competence.

That's fair. There are certainly games where that would be my preference as well (like 4e!), but my recent focus on diegetic mechanics has me more interested in pursuing opposite approaches.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As with so many things, there are no right answers here, only preferences regarding ease, style, and numerous other factors.

Absolutely. Which is why I always try and point it out to people when they have issues with certain things in the game and try to come up with cogent reasons why WotC should make changes (even during times when there's no products on the way in which to put those changes) that they will get what they want faster, and more concisely if they just make the change themselves.

I mean back in 2014 and early 2015 we had numerous posters all complaining about the Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter feats-- how they were overpowered and that all their players took them and that they were bored with how often they saw them-- and they felt it was imperative that WotC remove them from the game or errata the crap out of them. Which of course WotC never did.

I cannot imagine any player from that time who has actually KEPT those hated feats IN their games over these last 10 years because WotC never removed or errata'd them. I HAVE to believe those DMs just removed those feats themselves. Because the idea that any DM can't make their game their own and are stuck with only what WotC gives them-- requiring them to just put out complaints year after year after year in hope that WotC finally listens to them and makes a change that they want-- is just too saddening to think about. I would not wish any DM to be stuck thinking their game is in the designers hands like that for all time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If DMs are expected to do the designers' job, WotC should set up a fund to pay them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As a simulationist, I'd prefer DM do a lot more worldbuilding anyway, and I like loot drops.

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

 

[Pedantic]

This is true, and to my mind speaks to a deeper issue with the design philosophy around introducing resolutions for particular challenges in the game.

One thing that comes up repeatedly with regard to D&D is that mysteries are often binary in their presentation; either the PCs have something at their disposal which can completely negate the challenge ("I cast speak with dead on the corpse and ask him who killed him") or they don't have what they need and can't progress (i.e. only one party member can check for tracks, and flubs their skill roll).

The problem is often seen that trying to alleviate the former can often lead to the latter, where preemptive means of making sure the PCs are equipped to handle certain things that come up in the adventure over-correct in how much versatility they offer, essentially negating challenges rather than preparing the PCs to face them.

At least on paper, there are several ways around this, though they all have their own issues. For instance, reducing things from automatically working to offering a check (e.g. knock allows for a roll to succeed, rather than automatically unlocking the door), which has issues of putting the PCs right back to square one if the check fails, to having the GM preemptively allow for multiple resolutions to problems the PCs encounter (e.g. the popular three clue rule), but which then puts a heavier prep burden on the GM.

As with so many things, there are no right answers here, only preferences regarding ease, style, and numerous other factors.

I get quite heated about this topic, because I think it's a complete misunderstanding of what a "challenge" is in the first place. The PCs goals should not align with specific obstacles that require specific solutions. Getting a thing out of a dungeon is a challenge, a locked door or a wall or a monster is not. PCs should be leveraging abilities (in the form of skill check results, spells, items, intrinsic properties of having a high strength score, etc.) against the world at large. Any obstacle that's resolved by the application of one ability isn't, and cannot be a challenge.

There is a horrible tendency to equate "chance to roll well" with "challenge." There is no gameplay, nor skill tied to rolling a 17 or better on a die. The interesting bit is choosing to take a risk that requires you to do that (or noting that there is no risk and doing it until you succeed). 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.