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

[The Old Crow]

I would do several things to close the gap.

To start with, I would have something called Martial Ability that classes could get. To calculate, just use the multi-class calculations to find out the character's spellcasting level for spell slots, subtract that from the total character levels, and the remainder is the Martial Ability level. So a 9th level Bard would be 0/9, a Fighter would be 9/0, a half caster would be 5/4, and a third caster would be 6/3.

There would be Martial Ability Maneuvers (I suck at naming things, can you tell?) that could be learned. Probably limit their uses to PB per day, but they would scale, say at 7th, 12th, and 17th (arbitrary assigned for purposes of example). There could be a Martial Ability called Rallying Speech, where you can influence one person at first, but then everyone in a huddle, then everyone in 30', then everyone in 90'.

Second step would be to require all expansions to give equal space to Martial Abilities and spells. Also, if they add a spell that lets a spellcaster do something martial like distract someone in combat to give their enemy disadvantage and an ally advantage, add a Martial Ability that does something similar.

 

[Laurefindel]

A 5e child with a four strength can apparently climb and swim with 60 pounds strapped to them just as easily as they could without it, and anything that doesn't kill them will heal overnight in terms of playing with matches or knives.

But that’s mostly an artifact of D&D being a loose simulator* for adventuring adults, not because human children in D&D are intentionally superhuman in nature.

Unless the game or setting explicitly says otherwise, I expect human to be akin to what I can relate to as a human, and take mechanical abstraction in the simulator as, well, abstractions, not intentional changes.

* I know D&D doesn’t aim to be a simulator that takes everything in consideration, but it is a simulator nonetheless. That’s what rules do; any rules. « Simulator » in RPG is not a yes/no question. All game systems are simulators, only, some are more precise, or aim at simulating something more specific, than others.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Any arthropod would run afoul of the cube-square law. And, D&D, has many scaled-up arthropods. Humanoid giants also can't stand under their own weight, and any flying creature larger than about 60lb/30kg, is also prettymuch grounded.

The cube/square law can't be valid in D&D land.

Which means jumping insane distances (or surviving falling insane distances, which D&D humans can already do), among other things, is on the table. (STR/weight ratios are also a function of the cube/square law, that opens up all sorts of crazy anime/wuxia maneuvers.)


Well, they can heal from mortally wounded to perfectly healthy in like 8 hours, 1 hr with a bit of theoretical recovery left to do, while receiving only medieval medical care. And, as already mentioned can survive falls from great heights without the slightest disability.

Again, bad (very, very bad in this case) mechanics.

 

[Raiztt]

I don’t think you can just say square cube law doesn’t apply. It is just consequence of how basic maths work, and I don’t think we can conceive a world to which maths do not apply. You must assume some other reason, either physiological or magical, why those creatures can exist.

I am also not sure that something like humanoidish giants are impossible with normalish physiology. There were pretty damn big bipedal dinosaurs so bipeds of huge size can exist.

The Square-cube law is only going to be relevant in "enbiggening ray" or "shrinking ray" situations.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't disagree with that - I just don't want to play a game where humans aren't RL humans.

Then it's Everyday Heroes for you.

Because D&D isn't real life and never tries to be. Even 3e, the only edition that pretended.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Bad mechanics.

Not bad so much as a simplification extrapolated outside the normal range. D&D mechanics are mechanics centered round medium sized adult characters who are professional adventurers and the further you get from that baseline the less they work as an approximation of the setting.

 

[Raiztt]

Because D&D isn't real life and never tries to be. Even 3e, the only edition that pretended.

I mean, maybe at your table.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The Square-cube law is only going to be relevant in "enbiggening ray" or "shrinking ray" situations.

The square cube law refers to the shape of an object and its materials, not being the literal exact same object. A giant is still man shaped, except for the Fat Joke Hill Giant, which is a rough sphere.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I mean, maybe at your table.

I hate to bring it up but dragons and wizards makes it not real life and not attempting to be like at all.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Sure they do. What I'd like to avoid is saying that you cannot play Simone Biles because her vaulting ability is an NPC-only feature.

Let’s take an actual example.

The PCs are in a gaming establishment. They end up gambling against one of the patrons. Statswise, he is a human noble with + 10 proficiency in gaming tools. Even with expertise, you can’t build a rogue with +10 in gaming until relatively high level.

Of course, the noble isn’t a rogue. He doesn’t have Cunning Action, or sneak attack and he can’t do what a rogue can. While the rogue was learning those cool tricks, the noble was gambling, and therefore is better at gambling than a rogue with expertise.

A player could ask to play a gambler in a future campaign, though the character is pretty useless in the combat, exploration and social pillars (apart from gambling).

From a realism perspective, it is less realistic to say that this NPC who is really good at gambling is also a high level rogue, when there is no reason to establish that he is good at combat, than to say that PCs are adventurers first, and the cost of that breadth is that they may be less good at certain tasks than NPCs that specialize.