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

[Eric V]

When things like this have been brought up before I remember being convinced that it really makes the game not fun to have to decide how much closer to death you want to be to do things on a regular basis.

One place I've wondered about using it is when people run out of their daily or short rest abilities. What if you usually only do that maneuver once because it's so taxing... but if you reach down and push it you can do it again. Where reaching down and pushing it is the hit point expenditure. (I could also see exhaustion instead of hit points too).

I could see that, sure. I can think of a few...let's say, Vegas-Minded people, who would love it.

Having exhaustion points could work too, though it's an additional resource to track; I figured hp makes it simpler. Or maybe the first manuever in a battle is free, as you say, and then it costs. There's lots of room to tweak. The advantage, though, is that we could get some really neat scaling maneuvers without it being "but that's just spells" or "Why doesn't she do this all the time?"

 

[overgeeked]

When things like this have been brought up before I remember being convinced that it really makes the game not fun to have to decide how much closer to death you want to be to do things on a regular basis.

One place I've wondered about using it is when people run out of their daily or short rest abilities. What if you usually only do that maneuver once because it's so taxing... but if you reach down and push it you can do it again. Where reaching down and pushing it is the hit point expenditure. (I could also see exhaustion instead of hit points too).

Exactly. Killing yourself to do cool stuff is never fun in play. Even things like Marvel FASERIP spending karma to do cool stuff was lame because karma was also your XP. Just let the PCs do cool stuff. There should be limits, but not like that.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think they’re increasingly irrelevant to the future of the game and trying to appeal to them is part of the problem. This is why I keep mentioning bewer fans and their touchstones.

And, for the thread in general, we don’t need to worry about mundane or supernatural martials. We just need rough mechanical parity between martials and casters.

Nobody is saying that d&d shouldn't pull from sources more recent than appendix N, just that not every possible source is fitting for d&d and that claiming to pull from new sources as support of problematic design doesn't change the problem when no specific source for it can be pointed out.

Mentioning them and using them as an irrelevant Snape hunt to deflect a spotlight being pointed at problematic design elements are different things though aren't they? For example... you gave a list of anime and such that mostly focused on characters who fall firmly under some flavor of fighter/rogue/barbarian as evidence of "touchstones" supporting 5e style attack cantrips earlier. Even the spellcasters were dramatically unsupporting of those cantrips and in one case actually supported past dmg warnings about one of the problems with 5e attack cantrips.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean, what's wrong with fantasy worlds just having a narrative of "Some people are given hidden blessings by the gods. These people can grow in stature, skill, and will from risk. danger and exposure to the evils of the world to grow into people who can challenge the gods themselves".

It's appropriate to genre/myth/legend/folklore heck, even RL beliefs, historically. Many an emperor/king/whatever has claimed divine favor... most all, really... Pharaoh claimed to be gods...

Nothing. But you have to put that narrative in the book somewhere. You can't just assume it for every table.

We assume Gods exist and empower Clerics/Paladins at every table, that there are extradimensional beings wanting to make pacts with would-be Warlocks at every table, that there are sorcerous-power bestowing wild magic events at every table, that there are Orders of Druids or Paladins in the setting at every table.... every class brings with it assumptions. "hidden blessings by the gods" isn't any worse than those brought in by Cleric, Paladin, Warlock or Druid... Sorcerer seems to have more of a range.

So something like, "...super-human potential from some source, perhaps the Gods themselves, the meddling of some not-quite divine power, a warp in the Weave, perhaps a Destiny the Gods themselves are unaware of...." would be even better. But, for a religious setting "blessed by the Gods" would work, even if it weren't accurate.

so how do they deal with having Hawkeye and Ironman as players?

I expect they'd be a handful. Stark is arrogant and flippantly domineering, Barton ...has issues.

I'd rather have the Beast & Nightcrawler as players.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ok. Still, this is just a matter of degree...it is only out of whack if the cost for the maneuver is made too high in the design process.

It's out of whack because you are forcing the character to trade their Not Die Juice for the ability to try and do a thing.

Meanwhile the casters can easily ger more Not Die Juice and still get to do more than a boring attack.

Basically you're saying martials can get things to do over their own dead bodies.

 

[mamba]

I expect they'd be a handful. Stark is arrogant and flippantly domineering, Barton ...has issues.

I was thinking from a difference in power perspective, but I guess that is not the only potential problem

 

[Eric V]

Exactly. Killing yourself to do cool stuff is never fun in play. Even things like Marvel FASERIP spending karma to do cool stuff was lame because karma was also your XP. Just let the PCs do cool stuff. There should be limits, but not like that.

So, full disclosure: I was more than fine with 4e's AEDU system. The "dissociated mechanics" argument never really made sense to me. I understand, however, that it's a deal-breaker for some, so I went with the thing that is already kind of meta, and had a workable "in-universe" explanation. Depending on the cost, it could work well, IMO.

Re: karma. I hated that in TSR Marvel too, though to be fair, hp are much more replenishable than karma points. As well, under a system like this, THP could fuel maneuvers as well, so when I get inspired and get THP, they still serve a purpose, even if no one attacks me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

so how do they deal with having Hawkeye and Ironman as players?

They discourage wide power disparities within the party, but they allow them, and suggest that if you go that way you make sure that there are different tasks available for different characters so that all players can contribute to play. Short of going narrative (which I'm glad they didn't lean hard into), it's the best solution I know of.

 

[tetrasodium]

I could see that, sure. I can think of a few...let's say, Vegas-Minded people, who would love it.

Having exhaustion points could work too, though it's an additional resource to track; I figured hp makes it simpler. Or maybe the first manuever in a battle is free, as you say, and then it costs. There's lots of room to tweak. The advantage, though, is that we could get some really neat scaling maneuvers without it being "but that's just spells" or "Why doesn't she do this all the time?"

There is a big gameplay problem created by that sort of mechanic. It's not fair to the rest of the group when that "Vegas minded" player shifts from accepting "you win some and you lose some" gambling to a different style of gambling sometimes summed up as privatized gains socialized losses and turns to the group or GM to fix the loss or drives an icepick into the gameplay after irresponsibly "gambling". Players forcing the 5mwd is a great example of doing that without them even having the option to draw deeper or whatever for more power.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Exactly. Killing yourself to do cool stuff is never fun in play. Even things like Marvel FASERIP spending karma to do cool stuff was lame because karma was also your XP. Just let the PCs do cool stuff. There should be limits, but not like that.

FASERIP never put a lot of importance on xp or advancement, to be fair.