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

[Xetheral]

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.

I of course agree with you on what the mechanics of to-hit rolls and skills checks are. I don't agree with you, however, that combat and skills necessarily "boil down" to application of those mechanics.

Combat in 5e can be about trying to attack and deplete the enemy's HP before they deplete yours, but it doesn't have to be. For instance, if at a particular table the outcome of combat is rarely in doubt, then combat at that table is more about who the PCs fight, when, and why, rather than about d20 rolls. Examples include games where the challenge comes from trying to stack the odds in the party's favor prior to combat, or old-school-style games where the challenge comes from trying to avoid combat, or games where the players are skilled at having their characters seize the strategic initiative, or games where the DM frequently designs combat encounters with goals other than killing all the enemies.

Each of those tables will experience the martial/caster divide differently from tables where combat does boil down to application of the combat mechanics to see who runs out of HP first.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I of course agree with you on what the mechanics of to-hit rolls and skills checks are. I don't agree with you, however, that combat and skills necessarily "boil down" to application of those mechanics.

The mechanics available to resolve combat and non-combat skills are attack rolls and attribute checks - and attendant bits like damage rolls.
The mechanics available to resolve spells are more varied.
That contributes to the martial/caster gap.

Examples include games where the challenge comes from trying to stack the odds in the party's favor prior to combat, or old-school-style games where the challenge comes from trying to avoid combat, or games where the players are skilled at having their characters seize the strategic initiative, or games where the DM frequently designs combat encounters with goals other than killing all the enemies.

Each of those tables will experience the martial/caster divide differently.

They might each experience it differently, but, it looks like, from those examples, they'll all experience a wide gap that favors casters.

 

[Pedantic]

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.

To be clear, I don't actually have a problem with the essential d20 resolution mechanic, and I don't think rolling dice is intrinsically problematic, just that it's not where the gameplay happens. The decision making on the player side is at the level of action resolution, and the die roll is input into that decision. If you know you have a limited chance of success and the consequences of success/failure on an action, you can evaluate your action choice.

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.

I've long argued that skills should also resolve to specific actions that do what the say they do, and that tasks should reference fixed, specific DCs instead of floating with a generic difficulty table or the DM's judgement.

 

[Xetheral]

The mechanics available to resolve combat and non-combat skills are attack rolls and attribute checks - and attendant bits like damage rolls.
The mechanics available to resolve spells are more varied.
That contributes to the martial/caster gap.

I agree that contributes, though I'd emphasize it's one cause among many. I just wanted to point out that the challenge of combat comes from different places at different tables, and those differences inevitably lead to different experiences of the martial/caster divide.

They might each experience it differently, but, it looks like, from those examples, they'll all experience a wide gap that favors casters.

Quite possibly! A lot would depend on the specifics. But they're still all going to come to the martial/caster divide with different experiences and different preferences for solutions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To be clear, I don't actually have a problem with the essential d20 resolution mechanic, and I don't think rolling dice is intrinsically problematic,

TBF, the essential d20 resolution mechanic

Spoiler: not important

does have an issue with being a uniform rather than normal distribution.... as we often say in RPG discussion, "it's swingy" tho, that's not any kind of statistics or anything. The mechanic just has a hard time modeling the kind of consistency you get from experts &c.

I'm just little leary of dismissing dice rolling (ROLL v ROLE debate never really ended), as it often goes with dismissing mechanics, entirely.

just that it's not where the gameplay happens. The decision making on the player side is at the level of action resolution, and the die roll is input into that decision. If you know you have a limited chance of success and the consequences of success/failure on an action, you can evaluate your action choice.

How good a job the system does matching it's model to what it's modeling has a big impact on that. So does the degrees of freedom or agency or whatever you want to call it that it provides players who don't care for the input the system gives them.
Like, in 5e, outside of combat & spellcasting, most things fall into the basic d20 check play loop, that you can loop yourself right out of and into automatic success, if you can just come up with an action declaration that the DM will simply narrate success in response to. Otherwise, it's the flat distribution of the d20, and you have nothing helping you but your Bounded Accuracy bounded bonus.

I've long argued that skills should also resolve to specific actions that do what the say they do, and that tasks should reference fixed, specific DCs instead of floating with a generic difficulty table or the DM's judgement.

I suppose there's all sorts of ways to go with that. Pools of points or dice equating to effort or willpower or luck. Narrative resources, etc.

 

[Pedantic]

TBF, the essential d20 resolution mechanic

Spoiler: not important

does have an issue with being a uniform rather than normal distribution.... as we often say in RPG discussion, "it's swingy" tho, that's not any kind of statistics or anything. The mechanic just has a hard time modeling the kind of consistency you get from experts &c.

I've found this is best resolved by embracing Take 10/Take 20 mechanics, and possibly providing skill roll affecting mechanics as a function of class. Fantasy Craft had a solid take on the idea, in that several classes got an ability at level 1 that prevented them from rolling lower than 20+Level on thematically appropriate skills.

I'm just little leary of dismissing dice rolling (ROLL v ROLE debate never really ended), as it often goes with dismissing mechanics, entirely.

How good a job the system does matching it's model to what it's modeling has a big impact on that. So does the degrees of freedom or agency or whatever you want to call it that it provides players who don't care for the input the system gives them.
Like, in 5e, outside of combat & spellcasting, most things fall into the basic d20 check play loop, that you can loop yourself right out of and into automatic success, if you can just come up with an action declaration that the DM will simply narrate success in response to. Otherwise, it's the flat distribution of the d20, and you have nothing helping you but your Bounded Accuracy bounded bonus.

I suppose there's all sorts of ways to go with that. Pools of points or dice equating to effort or willpower or luck. Narrative resources, etc.

I've been more detailed elsewhere, but I'm calling for more mechanical detail and rigor, not less. Ideally, all possible skill actions should be listed in the book, with fixed DCs (and perhaps a table of appropriate situational modifiers) to use them. A player should know these DCs and thus know their likelihood of success before they declare a given action (and ideally should have a set of actions that cannot fail and affect the gamestate in specific ways that expands as they level up), barring hidden information around opposed checks. Though even then, I'd rather like determining that information to be gated behind other actions players might try.

 

[ECMO3]

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

That would be a lot more arduous as that requires entirely new rules and someone to write those abilities. Limiting Wizards to certain schools of spells or alternatively giving fighters half caster status requires no more substantial rules as the tables for half casters and spell schools already exist.

My point was not that we should give fighters spells to "fix" the gap, but rather that is one very easy and non-arduous solution. However, just because it is not arduous, that does not mean people will like it and your aversion to that solution more or less underscores this.

If you accept that this gap exists, any discussion about fixing it hinges on three key questions:
1. Is the gap a bad thing and should it be closed at all?
2. Is it worth the effort to implement a specific fix? (this is where being easy is a benefit)
3. Is the fix itself broadly acceptable to the community (here I would argue both fighters with spells and Wizards limited to certain schools are not broadly acceptable)

 

[CreamCloud0]

That would be a lot more arduous as that requires entirely new rules and someone to write those abilities.

yeah, and rage and stunning strike should've just been spells, and backstab a cantrip, make everything magic!



no wait, i'd rather we didn't.

 

[DEFCON 1]

yeah, and rage and stunning strike should've just been spells, and backstab a cantrip, make everything magic!



no wait, i'd rather we didn't.

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.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That would be a lot more arduous as that requires entirely new rules and someone to write those abilities.

Spell but not magic and no components.

It took me like two seconds.

It's not like 5e spells have much in the way of rules thanks to embracing rambling, vague 'natural language' descriptions.