D&D 5E [+] Ways to fix the caster / non-caster gap

[mamba]

Are Sorcerers descended from dragons exactly human? Not really, but anyone with the right stats can MC to one at any time.

I doubt you can multiclass into being descended from dragons…

In any case, I am for closing the gap by nerfing casters, not by everyone turning superhuman

Amusingly, in 4e, your character could (turn out to) be a Demigod (at 21st level)

level 21 sounds like another way of saying ‘not in 5e’.

If you want a supplement for levels 21-30, knock yourself out, I will ignore it

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I doubt you can multiclass into being descended from dragons…

By the rules as written you totally can...

 

[overgeeked]

Given that I could stick either of those backgrounds on the 1st-level Wizard I just rolled up, consistency dictates they have to follow the same rules - or close enough that either one can be or become my PC.

Since this is clearly going to be a perpetual subthread, how about taking the "should NPCs be built like PCs" conversation to its own thread so this one can go back to the actual topic?

Here's a thread for you...

https://www.enworld.org/threads/should-npcs-be-built-using-the-same-rules-as-pcs.700155/

 

[TwoSix]

Characters in the game can't see the mechanics and yet it's the mechanics that initially make not just the characters but everyone in the setting what they are. An Elf is an Elf, without regard for the presence or absence of a 'PC' sticker on its forehead.

Well, I mean that's one of the fundamental differences between our approaches. Everything in my setting(s) comes from my imagination. All my NPCs come from my imagination. "Elf" is a narrative descriptor, not a character one. If you want to use the aaracokra stats because your elf is a priest of the Raven Queen and she blessed you with Raven wings, go right ahead. If that elven priest is also a storm sorcerer/multiclassed into ranger, and has no other "divine" abilities, that's great too.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Since this is clearly going to be a perpetual subthread, how about taking the "should NPCs be built like PCs" conversation to its own thread so this one can go back to the actual topic?

Fair.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would it be considered not in the spirit of the thread to say that the way to fix the gap, which exists, is for martials to not exist? Then there won't be a gap anymore.

Unironically, you guys want superhero martials, let's just make sure there are no mundane martial characters. Give them magical and supernatural powers.

At higher levels, I'm down with that, provided their supernatural abilities are provided an explanation.

 

[mamba]

Realism applied selectively isn't realism.

yes, not really relevant however, even in your game there is some realism left, have fun trying to stamp all of it out…

I am not aiming for 100% realism, that I am ok with wizards and dragons should tell you that already

 

[overgeeked]

Fair.

Made a thread and included a link.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/should-npcs-be-built-using-the-same-rules-as-pcs.700155/

 

[Lanefan]

The rules are designed to make a playable game - see hit points, armor class, death saves, short rests etc... so that if you squint hard it seems vaguely to match the desired story.

It feels like the point isn't that it's easier to invent all new spells for the NPCs, but that the small (relative to PF1e or what happens in the representative fiction) list of spells doesn't describe the whole world of possibility and that the DM shouldn't be straight jacketed by them?

"The bad guy has a ritual to raise all the countrt's dead bodies and send them to attack their living descendants."

"Disbelieve, no spell in the PHB does that "

I'd be the player saying the bolded, though "Disbelieve" would probably be replaced with "I want his magic items!".

And if it turned out he didn't have an item that gave this ability - even if only once - there'd be some squawking. I think this way as a DM as well; if an NPC* can do something funky there has to a) be a valid in-game explanation for it, b) it sets a precedent, and c) it has to be or become available to any PCs who meets whatever pre-reqs the spell or ability might have.

* - NPC of a playable species, not non-playable monster.

 

[Cadence]

I'd be the player saying the bolded, though "Disbelieve" would probably be replaced with "I want his magic items!".

And if it turned out he didn't have an item that gave this ability - even if only once - there'd be some squawking. I think this way as a DM as well; if an NPC* can do something funky there has to a) be a valid in-game explanation for it, b) it sets a precedent, and c) it has to be or become available to any PCs who meets whatever pre-reqs the spell or ability might have.

* - NPC of a playable species, not non-playable monster.

Are these all the kind of things that would be ok?

They sold their soul to Orcus and beat out 100 others who did the same in a contest of the damned.
They were the spawn of a far realms thing and a succubus.
They spent 500 years studying the ritual in the temple of eternal Darkness.