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

[Neonchameleon]

Nod. When you're looking for not-magic in 5e, you need to go to the sub-class level.

And then you get to the interesting cases such as the Psi Warrior and the Echo Knight (whether or not you accept Crawford's mess of a ruling that messes up the subclass). No spells, no spell mechanics but explicitly supernatural.

 

[Tony Vargas]

how so? It already is central, I do not see imposing restrictions making it more central, if anything it makes magic less central, unless you are purely focused on word count

The game becomes all about overcoming those restrictions, because the way to solve every problem is to bring magic to bear, so you do whatever it takes to make sure the casters can do their thing. Meticulously gathering large, quantities of spell components, cache them and duplicate spellbooks in safe locations, human shields to protect the casters, stockpiling scrolls and wands, pre-casting spells to make it safer to cast other spells that make it possible to cast the spell you actually need, etc, etc...
....shouldn't be that unfamiliar, really...

It's more shifting the gap. The casters are all-important, but they're so helpless the non-casters need to carry them about and die protecting them. Great. Now playing either of them feels bad.

As opposed to just balancing martials & casters.

 

[Lanefan]

The only reason to need a baseline is if you plan to filter the game through an unnecessary realism filter in the first place.

The realism filter is not only necessary, it's essential.

Otherwise, you just use the races as described.

EDIT: In either case, at the point you try to justify how human physical performance limitations should apply to the wildly varying PC race options, stop trying to sell me on how "realistic" or "immersive" it is.

I agree. Removing species-based stat bonuses and penalties in relation to Humans (or to whatever other baseline one might want to apply) is IMO a major design error, and either blows up realism/immersion or makes the species so alike that they might as well almost all be the same.

It isn't. You just need it to make your game work and you don't want to do the additional work to think through what the "real" limitations for these races should be.

I don't want to do that work. I want the designers to do it for me, and thus for all of us.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The realism filter is not only necessary, it's essential.

No it isn't. A filter is essential for tone. It being "realism" isn't. Cinematic, Hollywood Physics works just as well - and fits far better with D&D's mechanics.

I agree. Removing species-based stat bonuses and penalties in relation to Humans (or to whatever other baseline one might want to apply) is IMO a major design error, and either blows up realism/immersion or makes the species so alike that they might as well almost all be the same.

Special abilities make far more difference between race than +/-2 to stats ever did.

I don't want to do that work. I want the designers to do it for me, and thus for all of us.

Here we agree.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The realism filter is not only necessary, it's essential.

I agree. Removing species-based stat bonuses and penalties in relation to Humans (or to whatever other baseline one might want to apply) is IMO a major design error, and either blows up realism/immersion or makes the species so alike that they might as well almost all be the same.

I don't want to do that work. I want the designers to do it for me, and thus for all of us.

Suffice to say I disagree with the first point.

In regards to the second bit, this is a function of branching conversation. The contention someone had made was that the other races "must" be similar to the human baseline, because the game rules describe them similarly (not that this is even all that accurate).

As far as what the races' physical capabilities "should" be, I think most any, including thoae already in the PHB are justifiable without any particular reference to Earth humans.

 

[overgeeked]

Realism is laughable in D&D. Gygax called this out back in 1979.

“Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn't been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.” —Gary Gygax, AD&D DMG, p9, 1979.

Emphasis added. Gygax designed the game to be a game, not a realism-simulator. D&D has never been a game about realism. It’s a fantasy game. Attempting realism is a fool’s errand.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Emphasis added. Gygax designed the game to be a game, not a realism-simulator. D&D has never been a game about realism. It’s a fantasy game. Attempting realism is a fool’s errand.

Yesyes, that's why we now say "verisimilitude" when we mean "realism."

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be clearer..

Since the idea was to craft game mechanics to suit a "realistic" view of what is going on in the setting, in this case, I was referring to the setting assumptions that are supposed to lead to "more realistic", "less immersion-breaking" game mechanics, not any existing mechanics.

Well, in all fairness if a mechanic leads away from the realistic view I'm looking for, and said mechanic isn't more trouble than it's worth to remove (like hit points) I'm inclined to see about changing it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The only reason to need a baseline is if you plan to filter the game through an unnecessary realism filter in the first place. Otherwise, you just use the races as described.

EDIT: In either case, at the point you try to justify how human physical performance limitations should apply to the wildly varying PC race options, stop trying to sell me on how "realistic" or "immersive" it is.

It isn't. You just need it to make your game work and you don't want to do the additional work to think through what the "real" limitations for these races should be.

Any reason for all the hostility? Is someone attacking your playstyle, 'cause what I see is more the opposite.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Any reason for all the hostility? Is someone attacking your playstyle, 'cause what I see is more the opposite.

I suppose, in the context of the thread,

[+] Ways to fix the caster / non-caster gap​

"realism"/verisimilitude/immersion assertions usually serve only to shoot down possible solutions?

Which should not be the case, surely we can nerf casters with realism?

"I cast fireball"
"nothing happens!"
"Wha- why not?"
"REALISM!"