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

[Aldarc]

One of the arguments for the ranger and paladin having spells is that a ranger or paladin would need spells in order to perform these roles in a world of magic. I'm not entirely sure why that would be true for the ranger and paladin but not true for the non-casters (e.g., fighter, rogue, barbarian, etc.) who also inhabit this world. Why wouldn't a fighter need war magic for fighting? Why wouldn't a rogue need shadow magic for stealth?

 

[FrogReaver]

that probably is all there is, it just is not very satisfying that your Rogue has to distract the Temple Guard while your Wizard kills their God

More importantly. If a wizard can kill the god, why can’t they also distract a guard?

 

[Cadence]

One of the arguments for the ranger and paladin having spells is that a ranger or paladin would need spells in order to perform these roles in a world of magic. I'm not entirely sure why that would be true for the ranger and paladin but not true for the non-casters (e.g., fighter, rogue, barbarian, etc.) who also inhabit this world. Why wouldn't a fighter need war magic for fighting? Why wouldn't a rogue need shadow magic for stealth?

Iirc PF1e had some Ranger options that got away from the spells. I can see a completely non-magical Ranger being a thing (extraordinary instead of supernatural in the PF sense). It also had options for other classes that splashed outdoor skillfulness.

I'm not sure what the point of a Paladin is there isn't some Supernatural stuff going on. (Unless all Paladins need to have warhorses, so a Cavalier, or all Paladins are leaders so a Warlord).

 

[FrozenNorth]

I've been discussing this at the level of the base class. I think it's been covered elsewhere pretty well that subclasses simply don't have the ability budget to drag up the rest of the fighter chassis. Fundamentally I don't see a problem with "Rune Knight" or "Arcane Archer" as a concept. If that was the base class, you'd have sufficient conceptual space to hang abilities on without offending anyone's understanding of mundanity. If anything, the fact that power sources are optional add-ins that exist onl in the Fighter's subclasses is evidence the basic concept is defined by their lack.

Where’s your evidence that the fighter is defined by a lack of power source?

 

[Cadence]

Where’s your evidence that the fighter is defined by a lack of power source?

How was the Martial power source described in the 4e books? One wiki has "The Martial power source is not strictly a magic system, though, representing fantastic feats made possible by intense training and willpower among fighters and other physical classes."

 

[Tony Vargas]

Too harsh. Give 'em one spell a day, at least.

More to the point, I think that low-level tier should be when the warrior types get to strut their stuff, with the casters coming more online as the levels advance. 1e had this right, though too extreme at either end.

Point is, mundane. Spells aren't mundane.

 

[Pedantic]

Where’s your evidence that the fighter is defined by a lack of power source?

Every argument about fighters forever?

 

[overgeeked]

I was actually thinking to remove Dex from the equation, to something like 8 + x2 Proficiency bonus. Sure that means everyone eventually gets AC 20 at a minimum, but I'd like to think by those levels most characters have that AC (or better) somehow anyways.

EDIT: this isn't by itself a solution for the AC plateau, but 1) you can always add magic armor to your game, and 2) I'm aware that not everyone thinks this is a problem in the first place.

Or give prof bonus to AC just to martials. Makes sense. Monk and barbarian already have something like that. Give it to rogues and fighters, too. Skin it however you want. Armor prof or parrying or whatever. This also helps with the wizards are almost as tanky as fighters problem.

 

[Pedantic]

Or give prof bonus to AC just to martuials. Makes sense. Monk and barbarian already have something like that. Give it to rogues and fighters, too. Skin it however you want. Armor prof or parrying or whatever. This also helps with the wizards are almost as tanky as fighters problem.

It works a lot better in an armor as DR model. Fantasy Craft did that with a class specific defense bonus appointments flat damage reduction from armor to good effect.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Where’s your evidence that the fighter is defined by a lack of power source?

Well, fighters have always been the "everyman class"
IIRC, before NPC classes, the least of NPCs were defined as 0-level fighters?

(...yeah, the 1e DMG attack matrix at least implies it, the fighter's is the only matrix with a level 0 column)