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

Older editions of D&D have arguably more balanced casters. At least back in the day the MU was fragile as glass and had to be very careful/judicious about when to even cast their spells.

Setting aside the root problem (specific spells being overpowered) the caster's kind of just get it all and don't have to sacrifice anything.
I'd be lying if I didn't say that playing a Wizard in 2023 is a far more satisfying experience for me now than it was in, say, 1989. However, I don't think the issue is really that Wizards became less punishing to play.

I mean, let's look at what has really changed for Wizards.

They gain 1 more hit point per level on average, and 2 more hit points at level 1 (since max hit points are now standard, no 1 hp Wizards).

They level up at the same pace as everyone else- kind of a wash, since Fighters also had hefty xp requirements, and Rogue levels are no longer strictly worse than levels in other classes. I suppose Clerics got hurt the worst by this, but they got more toys, so whatever.

They have the same chance to hit as everyone else. This makes spells that require attack rolls worth looking at, and we don't have to have a subsystem for "magic Thac0" or "touch AC". Also, if a character has a very low chance at success at attempting a task, one wonders why we would want them to be attempting that task as part of their normal play loop.

They have less spell slots now compared to earlier editions, and since most spells require concentration, cannot layer spells of any kind, be they party buffs or enemy debuffs. The only thing they can keep casting (for the most part) is HP damage spells. I see this as a wash. Sure, no Sleet Storm + Stinking Cloud combos (good), but no making the entire party Fly when an encounter calls for it (bad). Especially with what I see are needed buffs for martials ("Sorry Mr. Fighter, no Haste for you, I need to keep this Hypnotic Pattern going, and you can't keep enemies off me anyways").

Spells are in general far weaker now than they were 20 years ago.

Spells are less likely to be disrupted now than they were 30 years ago- a wash, since apparently we don't want a Defender role or any particular way to keep people from attacking our pointy hats other than hiding in a corner somewhere.

So why is this a problem?

Because non-casters didn't really get the same buffs.

Rogues fare the best here, as Sneak Attack is a reliable source of "do things in battle"; 3.x Sneak Attack had too many caveats, and Backstab was nigh-unusable.

Barbarians are almost totally reliant on what is, in effect, a "spell slot" ability that lets them be awesome for a few fights a day (but even then, it has a lot of caveats).

Fighters? What do Fighters have now that they didn't have before? They lost Weapon Specialization, they lost a suite of special combat feats built for them to use. They gained a minor self-heal 1/combat, Action Surge to make up for losing Haste, and a couple of free rerolls of likely poor saving throws. Contrast to the Fighter of 30 years ago, who had the best saving throws at high levels of anyone! Where once they got 11 bonus Feats (assuming their table uses Feats), they now get 2. Sure, maybe Feats do more now, but is a 5e Feat 5 times as good as a 3.x Feat? Sadly no, and 3.x had some whoppers like Combat Expertise!

They lost magic items. Even if you argue that, no they didn't, since the DM can still use this optional content, most of the items that boost the weaknesses and utility of the Fighter class require attunement, limiting you to using three at a time, ever! I can't stress how badly this nerfs everyone, but especially the Fighter, who now has to rely on others for things like immunity to death, freedom of movement, flight, the ability to survive on other planes...with no guarantee that their party will have a caster who can provide such, has the spell slots to do so, or can spare the concentration!

Now before anyone says "but wait, they got Subclasses"- not only did we have those 20 years ago in the form of Prestige Classes, everyone has a Subclass. And magical Subclasses are often strictly better than non-magical ones, and not even then- Eldritch Knights get to be 1/3 of a Wizard and Bladesingers get to be 1/2 of a Fighter.

Ultimately it's not that what Wizards and other spellcasters got that was too much- it's that other classes didn't get enough, and not enough thought was given to how classes support each other- casters lost ability to effectively support martials, and martials got very little to make up for that.

The argument of course for doing so was that casters were using these toys to support themselves back in 3.x, and I agree, they were. But reducing spell slots and making a caster only able to concentrate on one spell at a time only fixes half the problem. A simple fix of "the recipient of a buff spell must maintain concentration on it" would have at least addressed the issue, if not solved it completely.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Thought you wanted to nerf casters.
Cantrips aren't much more powerful than crossbows (until double digit levels). They just feel more wizardly.
ya I'd rather nerf casters than have super hero martials.
What is wrong with actually using the tier system? Tier 1: Average athlete. Tier 2: Olympian. Tier 3: Batman/Captain America. Tier 4: Mythological Demigod/excessive super?

Then you could avoid superheroes through knowing which tier to use.
 

Cantrips aren't much more powerful than crossbows (until double digit levels). They just feel more wizardly.

What is wrong with actually using the tier system? Tier 1: Average athlete. Tier 2: Olympian. Tier 3: Batman/Captain America. Tier 4: Mythological Demigod/excessive super?

Then you could avoid superheroes through knowing which tier to use.
I just prefer a game that is closer to swords-and-sorcery/conan - who did a lot of pretty fantastic stuff - but I would still prefer my mundane or martial classes to remain within the realm of human possibility. It's just a preference thing.
 

I just prefer a game that is closer to swords-and-sorcery/conan - who did a lot of pretty fantastic stuff - but I would still prefer my mundane or martial classes to remain within the realm of human possibility. It's just a preference thing.
But why it is not fine to just limit campaigns with such desired feel to sub level ten or so? I don’t think a level twenty character who is within real life human possibly is a coherent concept.
 


But why it is not fine to just limit campaigns with such desired feel to sub level ten or so? I don’t think a level twenty character who is within real life human possibly is a coherent concept.
level 10 isn't within that either, heck a level 1 caster already isn't. As to why level 20 should not be godlike, personal preference
 

But why it is not fine to just limit campaigns with such desired feel to sub level ten or so? I don’t think a level twenty character who is within real life human possibly is a coherent concept.
I mean one can certainly do that. I'm just weird and want the entire range of a game to be within my preferred 'zone'. But no, there is nothing stopping me or anyone else from doing that.
 

Sure, and my pushback here is that high-frequency use of attack spells, such as 5e cantrips, are pretty central to most modern conceptions of the mage/wizard trope.
5e cantrips go well beyond "high frequency" and cross into rapid fire unlimited machine gunning though. Spellcasters had ways of getting high frequency attack spells before 5e with low level wands hough.

The difference now is that rather than allowing the availability and type of those wands to be influenced by group/adventure dynamics and needs we have that power budget already consumed by something chosen during character creation. Worse is that caster PCs have even less room for goodies in treasure.

Also again: can you name any of these "modern mage/wizard" characters of fiction that are memorable enough individuals to be named?
 

Fighters? What do Fighters have now that they didn't have before? They lost Weapon Specialization, they lost a suite of special combat feats built for them to use. They gained a minor self-heal 1/combat, Action Surge to make up for losing Haste, and a couple of free rerolls of likely poor saving throws. Contrast to the Fighter of 30 years ago, who had the best saving throws at high levels of anyone! Where once they got 11 bonus Feats (assuming their table uses Feats), they now get 2. Sure, maybe Feats do more now, but is a 5e Feat 5 times as good as a 3.x Feat? Sadly no, and 3.x had some whoppers like Combat Expertise!

They lost magic items. Even if you argue that, no they didn't, since the DM can still use this optional content, most of the items that boost the weaknesses and utility of the Fighter class require attunement, limiting you to using three at a time, ever! I can't stress how badly this nerfs everyone, but especially the Fighter, who now has to rely on others for things like immunity to death, freedom of movement, flight, the ability to survive on other planes...with no guarantee that their party will have a caster who can provide such, has the spell slots to do so, or can spare the concentration!

Now before anyone says "but wait, they got Subclasses"- not only did we have those 20 years ago in the form of Prestige Classes, everyone has a Subclass. And magical Subclasses are often strictly better than non-magical ones, and not even then- Eldritch Knights get to be 1/3 of a Wizard and Bladesingers get to be 1/2 of a Fighter.
You seem to be confusing two issues. The Fighter lost Weapon Specialisation before they gained prestige classes, and with the major exception of Cleave (which is still present in the form of Great Weapon Mastery) the feats weren't all that hot. Twenty years ago fighters were at an all time low, encumbered by things like armour check penalties, by wands being cheaper and more common than magic swords, by feats being generally pretty awful, by iterative attacks coming out at below maximum BAB, and more. The 2e fighter could kick ass and take names - and had good saves and priority on the magic items table. The 3e fighter didn't.

The 2e fighter was simple - but at first level got +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and an extra attack every two rounds. Heavy weapons did more damage against large foes (which had far fewer hit points anyway). And had priority on the magic items table.

The 3.x fighter was a disaster. It lost weapon specialisation. It lost good saves at high levels. It lost priority on magic items because all its magic items were really expensive (when you can get three wands of CLW for the cost of a single +1 sword which do you pick?) It doesn't have anything like Second Wind or Action Surge. It couldn't actually make good use of the feats it had at low level if it wanted to prestige class as that would tie them up. Armour really got in the way. It moved from near top of the non-magical skills pile to the bottom.
Ultimately it's not that what Wizards and other spellcasters got that was too much- it's that other classes didn't get enough, and not enough thought was given to how classes support each other- casters lost ability to effectively support martials, and martials got very little to make up for that.
Why would a 3.X spellcaster support a martial if they could have an aggressively hegmonizing ursine swarm (druid who turned into a bear, had a bear companion, and summoned bears) in the party and support that? And that was the problem with the "fighter as recipient of spells" - they soaked up party resources without providing any, while the ursine swarm provided some in return. It's not a model I want back.

What I want is a fighter who can (as in 2e and 4e) stand on their own two feet.
 

Remove ads

Top