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

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I could go on, but people have this idea that D&D Wizards have mutated into this cartoonish level of magic use not seen in traditional fantasy, but for decades, Wizards in fantasy have long since left D&D Wizards in the dust with their quaint notion of limited spells per day.

Yeah, I don't really see it for high level D&D Wizards. The point wasn't that there aren't fantasy wizards that have more power, have more always on spells, etc.

The point was that high level D&D wizards have a cocktail of traits you don't see much outside of supers -- reliability, high frequency, no cost, power, and incredible versatility of effects.

Harry Potter -- certainly reliable, high frequency, and no cost. But power and versatility doesn't seem up to par. A lot of effects seem dependent on items, some artifact like - flying, teleporting, invisibility, time travel, etc. Many of the frequently used spells are things like levitation, disarm, and paralyze.

Dresden - didn't get past book 3 partly due to the lack of defined magic system. He's too drained to do magic. He's too drained to do magic. No, wait, he digs deep and can do magic! So certainly not reliable in the same way. There is a cost in fatigue although it disappears whenever it mattered so maybe not But regardless, I did not read those three books and think " this is certainly high level D&D wizard level power and versatility". No way.

I haven't read Wheel of Time but going insane is a high cost. A more modern one Broken Earth magic is powerful but you turn into a stone eater -- high cost. Almost all the "chosen one" type magic users have some kind of powerful cost (to themselves or others) or drawback. This isn't leaving the D&D Wizard in the dust if you go insane, lose your soul, inflict high collateral damage on the world, etc. That's high cost for power.

It's true Dr. Strange can basically just do anything so it is more extreme than the D&D Wizard, but I still maintain the D&D Wizard is closer to this than most of the fantasy wizards I've read or watched.

no cost
high versatility
high reliability
not unlimited but pretty high frequency per day
high power

Most fantasy wizards don't get all 5 of these.

If you wanted to more appropriately map modern spellcasters onto D&D, you'd have to make the top tier spells require long rituals, pacts with eldritch beings, or access to magical relics to be enabled, but then make the lower end spells essentially at-will or encounter powers, so people are throwing out lightning bolts and magic missiles many times per day if required.

Yes, that could be a way forward.

I'd also like a bit of limiting of versatility per individual caster.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not actually sure I like casters having endless attack cantrips. Constantly pew-pewing with magic lasers seems a tad video-gamey to me.
I kinda liked them having to conserve their attack spells or ending up shooting a crossbow badly like a peasant.

I don't mind this per se. The attack cantrips help some players jump into the power fantasy of a magic-slinging mage.

IMHO, the issue is that they gained endless attack cantrips with decent damage at the relative loss of absolutely nothing else in terms of their spells. If anything, they gained even more as a result of ritual casting and often some ways to regain spell slots. Opinions may vary, but I think that something somwhere needs to give in the design of full casters (and even half-casters). There should be trade-offs. Pick your poison.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In the Wheel of Time, the only thing that's really slowing down the Dragon Reborn is the fact that the more he taps into his power, the more insane he becomes; that's not a consequence of his magic per se, but a curse placed on his power source. Artifacts that can amplify his already ridiculous powers exist in the setting, like the sword Callandor.

That's true, but not really accurate.

Firstly, Rand is an exceptionally powerful channeler, vastly more powerful than virtually all other channelers. Even in the Age of Legends, the Dragon was one of the most powerful channelers, and in the time the books are set even weaker channelers from the Age of Legends are significantly more powerful than most Aes Sedai. He's a chosen one, and it doesn't make sense to use him as a baseline of power for that setting. That would be like saying that because Elminster and Sadira exist, every D&D mage should be their equal (even a 20th level mage pales in comparison to those characters). If the expectation is for every caster to be Rand al Thor, then every martial should reasonably expect to be the equal of Goku (or something).

Secondly, there are in fact limits to what the magic can do. Even wielding Callandor, Rand fails to restore the life of a single child. Characters have strengths and weaknesses in the various elements that compose the magic, and this influences what kinds of effects they're good at. Even Rand acknowledges that he's far less skilled at weaving air and water than earth and fire. There are things that casters can do in D&D that are simply not possible in WoT.

Thirdly, the casters themselves do have limits. Someone who channels too much of the One Power might collapse, have their connection to the Source damaged, or even burn themselves out and sever their connection entirely. It would be like if a wizard risked permanently losing access to their spell slots by casting too many spells.

Lastly, being a channeler in the WoT comes with certain drawbacks. Channelers are often mistrusted. Woman are typically bound by the magical three oaths (speak no untrue word, do not make weapons for killing, and only use the One Power as a weapon in self defense). Male channelers go insane, and are usually hunted down if their abilities become known. There are magic items which can literally enslave and torture channelers, but do nothing to ordinary people. There are also certain herbal concoctions that can block someone from touching the Source, as well as ways that a channeler can block another from doing so. I've talked to plenty of people who would probably pitch a fit if similar restrictions were placed on D&D mages, lol.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The pre Fighter/Fighting man stopped getting HD and got followers. Added with the excepted magic STR items, a fighter either became a lone Hulk or a Lord/Knight with a band of henchmen.

And, importantly for this conversation the wizard stopped getting HD and got a tower at the same time - and the highest level PC in Lake Geneva was level 13 (and I believe a fighter). 6th+ level spells were intended for NPCs.

 

[Minigiant]

And, importantly for this conversation the wizard stopped getting HD and got a tower at the same time - and the highest level PC in Lake Geneva was level 13 (and I believe a fighter). 6th+ level spells were intended for NPCs.

Guess what level 5e breaks down at.

Guess what level BG3 stops at.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Guess what level 5e breaks down at.

Guess what level BG3 stops at.

I wouldn't have picked one level. I'd have said that 12 would be the last where you could apply enough duct tape but it was already cracking by 9.

 

[TwoSix]

If you wanted to more appropriately map modern spellcasters onto D&D, you'd have to make the top tier spells require long rituals, pacts with eldritch beings, or access to magical relics to be enabled, but then make the lower end spells essentially at-will or encounter powers, so people are throwing out lightning bolts and magic missiles many times per day if required.

So, warlocks, basically. I'm definitely on board with that.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not actually sure I like casters having endless attack cantrips. Constantly pew-pewing with magic lasers seems a tad video-gamey to me.
I kinda liked them having to conserve their attack spells or ending up shooting a crossbow badly like a peasant.

Yes, but you can't really map modern representations of fantasy mages without being video game-y, because that's where the modern representations come from.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but you can't really map modern representations of fantasy mages without being video game-y, because that's where the modern representations come from.

Perhaps the modern interpretation of fantasy mages shouldn't be the only one that's presented. It promotes the false idea that newer versions of stuff are always an improvement.

 

[TwoSix]

Perhaps the modern interpretation of fantasy mages shouldn't be the only one that's presented. It promotes the false idea that newer versions of stuff are always an improvement.

It has nothing to do with improvement; it has to do with maintaining relevance as social mores and trends evolve over time. Maintaining an evolving game's conception of magic to align with the fantasy trends of the mid-to-late 20th century would render the game atavistic.