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

[Cadence]

Got a quote on that? I feel like some of these claims have been pushing vague implications about PCs being heroes in the PHB &overinflating them to toxic Main Character levels. Doing a quick search of the PHB the closest I found was pg16 where it says this:
"In the third tier (levels 11-16), characters have reached a level of power that sets them high above the ordinary populace and makes them special even among adventurers. At 11th level, many spellcasters At the fourth tier (levels 17-20), characters achieve the pinnacle of their class features, becoming heroic (or villainous) archetypes in their own right. The fate of the world or even the fundamental order of the multiverse might hang in the balance during their adventures.". That doesn't exclude NPCs from existing on that power-scale from being fairly common in the regions of the world where PCs of those levels adventure.

How many "heroic archetype"s who hold the "fundamental order of the multiverse" in the balance do you have running around your campaign?

I'm guessing there are some people who have "fairly common" 17-20th level NPCs in their world... but I'm guessing it would be a minority and I don't think it's ever been true in a published setting.

Edit: As seen below, I stand corrected.

 

[Lanefan]

According to 5E they are and this is a thread about 5E. As quoted above. The world, along with everything and everyone in it, is infused with magic. And the mechanics of the game explicitly show that they are special. Quite special when compared to your average Joe in the setting.

And I steadfastly assert that 5e, at a fundamental level, gets this wrong.

And it's that the design gets this wrong that leads to so many of these problems. If PCs and NPCs were symmetrical the call for more PC power would tamp down quicky as players would in theory think about their reaction to those powers being used against them; and despite the initial example being of a proposed martial ability the issue is far more prevalent with magic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So rewriting the base lore of 5E is a nessercery step in addressing the martial/caster divide??

Yeah, pretty much. The 5e lore is flawed in that way, IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Got a quote on that? I feel like some of these claims have been pushing vague implications about PCs being heroes in the PHB &overinflating them to toxic Main Character levels. Doing a quick search of the PHB the closest I found was pg16 where it says this:
"In the third tier (levels 11-16), characters have reached a level of power that sets them high above the ordinary populace and makes them special even among adventurers. At 11th level, many spellcasters At the fourth tier (levels 17-20), characters achieve the pinnacle of their class features, becoming heroic (or villainous) archetypes in their own right. The fate of the world or even the fundamental order of the multiverse might hang in the balance during their adventures.". That doesn't exclude NPCs from existing on that power-scale from being fairly common in the regions of the world where PCs of those levels adventure.

Very true. I'd also note that it mentions high level spellcasters, but nothing about high level non-spellcasters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For the record, I can agree that there is fun to be had in such a low magic setting.

From a spellcasting exemplar perspective, it sounds like there is very little that is usable in its current form.

This doesn't seem any closer to "D&D" than the MCU to me, but if there's balance to be had there, that's great.

It would certainly save us a ton of space in the monster manual, as a great many of the beasts in it should be functionally invulnerable to parties made up of GoT characters.

People used to have to resort to crazy things like "tactics", "trickery", or "finding what they need" to defeat such opponents. Can you imagine?

 

[Eric V]

Should? Says who? None of the fantasy literature I try to emulate features non-supernatural humans doing reality bending, physics breaking feats.

This conversation goes around and around and around but it's completely settled:

Different people have different base expectations/assumptions about their game world and what is possible. Done. Never the twain shall meet.

(For example, that's implicit in my first sentence: My game world is real world analog + magic.)

If it has men and women wielding swords killing a huge dragon, that's what it's doing. As @TwoSix pointed out above, the lone woman with a greatsword can kill 10 bears in a single combat without accruing mortal wounds; so much more reality-bending when considering what a dragon would be.

 

[Cadence]

Very true. I'd also note that it mentions high level spellcasters, but nothing about high level non-spellcasters.

I'll note that he cut off half the sentence about spell casters to in tier 3: "At 11th level many spellcasters gain access to 6th-level spells, some which create effects previously impossible for player characters to achieve. Other characters gain features that allow them to make more attacks or do more impressive things with those attack. These might adventurer's often confront threats to while regions and continents."

Ok, that does sound weak for the non-casters :-(. I blame the bard for the poor word choices.

 

[overgeeked]

And it's that the design gets this wrong that leads to so many of these problems. If PCs and NPCs were symmetrical the call for more PC power would tamp down quicky as players would in theory think about their reaction to those powers being used against them; and despite the initial example being of a proposed martial ability the issue is far more prevalent with magic.

I couldn't disagree more. Players have always and will always continue to scramble for more and more power. Making monsters work like PCs has nothing to do with it. Monsters in 5E have access to any spell or power the referee wants to give them...and yet...the players are still power hungry. 3X is one (well, two) of the editions that explicitly made monster creation based on PC creation and it had absolutely zero effect on players being power hungry. It also happened to be a nightmare to build monsters for. So not only does it not solve the problem you think it does, it explicitly makes running the game even more of a chore.

 

[overgeeked]

I'll note that he cut off half the sentence about spell casters to in tier 3: "At 11th level many spellcasters gain access to 6th-level spells, some which create effects previously impossible for player characters to achieve. Other characters gain features that allow them to make more attacks or do more impressive things with those attack. These might adventurer's often confront threats to while regions and continents."

Ok, that does sound weak for the non-casters :-(. I blame the bard for the poor word choices.

Exactly. The casters get to bend and break reality...while the martials get to swing their sword a smidgen harder.

 

[Gammadoodler]

People used to have to resort to crazy things like "tactics", "trickery", or "finding what they need" to defeat such opponents. Can you imagine?

I imagine it has pros and cons.

DM thinks the plan is good...yaay you win..
DM thinks the plan is bad... booo you die..

With a group of friends you trust and communicate well with. Probably great.

With a mixed group or the DM is having a bad day or the communication isn't great.. much less so.

Seems like the nature of the game becomes much more about who the players are and how they communicate with the DM than who their characters are and what they can do. Pro and Con.