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

[James Gasik]

Or go whole hog and give martials “expertise” in AC, attacks, and damage. They gain prof bonus to all three, double in the case of attacks. They are supposed to be experts in combat after all.

Which just makes anyone else who is supposed to be a melee combat class look pretty pathetic at a certain point. Don't get me wrong- I want Fighters to be better at Fightering, but if they go from A choice of class for the role to the choice of class for the role, that might be a problem.

Unless we're willing to turn Paladins and Rangers back into subclasses of the Fighter, of course.

 

[James Gasik]

One step/class at a time.

Really, I think Uncanny Dodge is the answer. Not the precise ability, but imagine if the Fighter had two abilities:

Flawless Parry: as a reaction, the Fighter can give themselves resistance to the damage of one attack.

And...

Shield Block: while having a shield equipped, as a reaction, the Fighter can give an adjacent ally resistance to the damage of one attack. They can use this ability 1/turn as a free action.

 

[overgeeked]

Which just makes anyone else who is supposed to be a melee combat class look pretty pathetic at a certain point. Don't get me wrong- I want Fighters to be better at Fightering, but if they go from A choice of class for the role to the choice of class for the role, that might be a problem.

Unless we're willing to turn Paladins and Rangers back into subclasses of the Fighter, of course.

Eh. Fighters should be the best choice for fighting. That’s literally what they’re for. Everyone else gets magic etc to make up for the difference.

 

[James Gasik]

Eh. Fighters should be the best choice for fighting. That’s literally what they’re for. Everyone else gets magic etc to make up for the difference.

Are Barbarians magic now? Just checking.

 

[Scribe]

Are Barbarians magic now? Just checking.

So believe that the Rage mechanic cannot be anything but Magical (for a given definition of Magical).

 

[Baron Opal II]

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)

Not the least, those were the men-at-arms. Trained, but inexperienced. A first level fighter was a veteran of at least one significant battle.

 

[Lanefan]

Which just makes anyone else who is supposed to be a melee combat class look pretty pathetic at a certain point. Don't get me wrong- I want Fighters to be better at Fightering, but if they go from A choice of class for the role to the choice of class for the role, that might be a problem.

Unless we're willing to turn Paladins and Rangers back into subclasses of the Fighter, of course.

Paladin could easily become a subclass of Cleric. Rangers - well, it depends on whether one wants to replicate the 1e Ranger who could tank, or the 2e Drizz't Ranger who couldn't tank. (let's just ignore the 3e Ranger who couldn't do much of anything)

Me, I'm all for the 1e Ranger and have no issues with it being part of the Fighter group (and losing most of its spell capability in the process).

 

[Vaalingrade]

One part of the Ranger is the Dex Fighter. The other part is the Also Druid.

 

[ECMO3]

Eh. Fighters should be the best choice for fighting. That’s literally what they’re for. Everyone else gets magic etc to make up for the difference.

Just because that is what they are for does not mean they should be the best at it, and I think improving them in other areas is a better way to buff the fighter class specifically.

A new Fighter who is better at things other than fighting while being no better at fighting than the current fighter is still better than the current, the "gap" from Fighter to caster is smaller and other classes can still be relevant and even dominant in the fighting role.

If the Fighter's role is to be "the best" at fighting always ...... Then what is the role of the Monk? Shouldn't they be "the best" at something? Shouldn't the Barbarian be "the best" at something? Switching gears, shouldn't the Sorcerer, already very powerful, be "the best" at something?

I don't think there is any such thing as a magic-free class in D&D considering the subclass options, however Barbarians and Rogues are less magical than Fighters and less powerful. There are some very high-magic fighter subclass options.

Since this is about closing the gap between casters and non-casters, something that improves the fighter specifically (which is already the most powerful non-caster) does not really close the gap from weakest non-caster (Monk) to strongest caster (Wizard) at all. That gap is the same size unless we come up with options that either buff the Monk (potentially with other non-casters) or nerf the Wizard.

 

[ECMO3]

Me, I'm all for the 1e Ranger and have no issues with it being part of the Fighter group (and losing most of its spell capability in the process).

I like the 1E Ranger, but the 1E Ranger had BOTH Wizard (magic-user) and Druid spells.

Magic is integral to my idea of a Ranger and IMO the best changes to the class in Tasha's was giving them more spells through Primal Awareness and invisibility as a bonus action through Nature's Veil.