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

[Pedantic]

I didn't have you in mind nor was I aware of your "royal we" views on this particular subject.

Cool, but you didn't answer my question. Why are we broadening the martial/magic divide to include "don't bother modeling a mechanically consistent world?" If anything, 5e is solid proof that not trying on that front doesn't seem to have much impact on the issue.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I think when a party with spell casters is like a football team, everyone can shine and have a purpose.

Being able to disrupt spells is a balancer of sorts. The fighters are very needed to push enemies away and take and deliver hits.

Spell casting has been made too plentiful and easy.

Likewise, I am not against cantrips being limited use. I have no problem with a wizard having to fall back on a quarterstaff after vaporizing a previous encounter with a fireball.

Ultimately at high levels it is not going to be balanced but using these tools will keep it more balanced during the majority of levels people actually play.

The other option is to cut down the spell list and have warlocks in lieu of wizards.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Taunt is a good idea - try to get your foes so mad they go berserk and throw caution, and defense, to the wind. I like it.

That said, for consistency it has to be available to the foes as well; and players would cry bloody blue murder the second such an ability got used against their PCs.

Oh, I've got a solution for that: NPCs are NPCs and consistency doesn't demand they get everything PCs get.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, but from what I recall, a good number of those people with such views don't even play 5e D&D. Their opinions will undoubtedly be heard, but they don't seem particularly relevant.

Well, since we're discussing hypothetical changes to how baseline 5e works, there are certainly potential changes that could increase buy-in among segments of the current holdouts. So I think this topic has relevance beyond current 5e supporters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course we play 5e, it's the only game in town. You try getting a group together to play a heavily houseruled 3.x variant. No one wants to read my binder, and no one cares about my esoteric concerns about objective skill DCs. I have to go online and argue simply to find anyone who cares enough about design to think I'm wrong.

What does this have to do with magic/martial discrepancies again?

I feel your pain on this.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Like, outside of One Punch Men, which is a parody, right?/Manga there is no mere non magical human who can compete with supernatural people.

Berserk: Guts could solo Schierke (she's basically a wizard), heck he could probably beat his entire party if they ganged up on him (which also has an apprentice wizard in it).

The thing with manga is that it tends to screw up your basic premise: Each manga tends to establish a power-system and then give everyone relevant the same system. It is extremely rare that you have a party that mixes power users and non-power users.

Jojo: Everyone has a stand.
Fairy Tail: Everyone is a spellcaster.
Hunter x Hunter: Everyone has access to nen.
Naruto: Everyone is a ninja.
Chainsaw Man: Everyone has a devil contract
Bleach: Almost everyone is a shinigami or something to that effect
Full Metal Alchemist: Almost everyone is an alchemist (or has alchemically derived powers)
Demon Slayer: Everyone has the breathing power thing.

In my opinion it is not fruitful to make comparisons with manga since D&D has become its own weird fiction. The issue is that manga basically does not have anything like the D&D wizard. It's not something that exists unless you look for specifically fiction that is inspired by D&D itself (like Overlord or some isekai series where the point is that the main character is an overpowered spellcaster).

 

[TwoSix]

Likewise, I am not against cantrips being limited use. I have no problem with a wizard having to fall back on a quarterstaff after vaporizing a previous encounter with a fireball.

Ultimately at high levels it is not going to be balanced but using these tools will keep it more balanced during the majority of levels people actually play.

The other option is to cut down the spell list and have warlocks in lieu of wizards.

I feel like there's enough room, even in the current 5e class composition, for spellcasting structures that allow for multiple preferences.

There can definitely be a class or classes with no cantrips, instead using a few high potency spells. Likewise, there can be a class or classes that only use cantrips and/or low level spells, but gets many or unlimited uses of them.

My concern is that there are so many possible permutations of casting methods, just even the ones mentioned in this thread, that I don't think a single Player's Handbook could contain them all. We've got suggestions ranging from AD&D style individual slot preparation all the way to "cantrips and invocations" style of 3e/5e warlocks.

 

[Li Shenron]

And they try to squeeze these three different magical concepts into one mechanical Warlock class.

Well you can split until you have 100 classes and then you wouldn't be finished anyway.

But other people see more value in one option that can be bent to different flavors without having to rewrite multiple times. It depends on how strong you like the ties between concepts and mechanics. Just saying this because there are people here all year long suggesting the opposite i.e. merge into less classes. After all a long time ago there was only Wizard and it didn't prevent people to picture their wizards as sorcerers, witches/warlocks, shamans, alienists, mystics...

I would rather proceed in this way: does a class mechanics really prevents a concept*? Then design a new mechanic that clearly enforces the concept. Is the mechanic small to be a feat? If not, is it still small enough to be a subclass? Only if not, make a new class.

*In the warlock case IMO only the "pact-breaker" does not have a mechanical representation. But does it really need one? Notice that WotC purposefully avoided any mechanic that make you lose abilities based on narrative: Clerics don't lose spells if they piss off their deity, Paladins not even if they murder babies, and alignment is not a thing (the only single outlier is Druid using metal armor, a single design mistake). Do you really want to go down the rabbit hole of codifying into a rule how a warlock should be roleplayed not to lose spells? The main effect will be to have all warlocks of the pact type roleplayed the same way so as not to break the rule.

 

[Cadence]

My concern is that there are so many possible permutations of casting methods, just even the ones mentioned in this thread, that I don't think a single Player's Handbook could contain them all. We've got suggestions ranging from AD&D style individual slot preparation all the way to "cantrips and invocations" style of 3e/5e warlocks.

This makes me think of a recent post in another thread where someone was amazed at how many books Paizo put out for PF 1e.

 

[Raiztt]

if anyone = martials, I am ok with that, they need more, the casters need less

No, definitely anyone. I don't like the idea that basic bodily actions are gatekept. It would make more sense for martials to be better at doing them, but it's not like a wizard can't attempt to shove someone.