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

[Micah Sweet]

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

This tells you the designers intentions, you know. Non-casters are simply not meant to be as powerful and cool as casters in WotC 5e. Corner Chris Perkins and assure him WotC isn't listening and I bet he'll admit it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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.

That separates the "skilled" gamers from the "unskilled."

 

[Cadence]

More from the PHB, pg 8:

"Without the uplifting power of the bards and clerics, the warriors might be overwhelmed by powerful foes. Without the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold."

See warriors are important! (For getting that last 10% left by the wizard and druid... when they have the bards and clerics saving their bacon. Again, was this whole thing written by bards!?!?)

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yup. I don't see a problem here. "But what if the DM is bad?" Isn't a valid argument to me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is it really 'Main Character Syndrome' when you're literally supposed to be an ensemble of Main Characters?

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yup. I don't see a problem here. "But what if the DM is bad?" Isn't a valid argument to me.

It isn't so much a "what if the DM is bad" argument.

It's more of a "the more of the players' success or failure rests in DMs' hands, the more the quality of the game will depend on DM quality" argument.

If enough of it is in the DMs' hands, then we're not really talking about the quality of the game mechanics any more.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

The question is less "how many" than "how many accept the job". It leads into the problem @Lanefan mentions if anything else

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.

Agreed. IME & going by players I've seen... a huge chunk of the players who started with 5e eventually decide they are Ainz Ool Gown & can act like him. That becomes a problem when they decide the GM is cheating if their PC is not only one of many at that power level but also still at a power level where someone can deal with their flagrant banditry with ease.

Back in 2e & 3.x you still saw players start thinking that way occasionally but it didn't turn into a debate when the GM says "yea you think the guards can easily back that threat up"

 

[Micah Sweet]

It isn't so much a "what if the DM is bad" argument.

It's more of a "the more of the players' success or failure rests in DMs' hands, the more the quality of the game will depend on DM quality" argument.

If enough of it is in the DMs' hands, then we're not really talking about the quality of the game mechanics any more.

If the DM sticks to the principles of the game and adjudicates honestly, including being willing to listen to their players, it should be fine.

 

[M_Natas]

Asgardians. Superman. Wonder Woman. Drax. Groot. Rock Lee. Pick a fancy swordsman.

Edit: I missed the "human" in there and have since chosen to ignore it as an irrelevant parameter.

All your examples I would consider supernatural and not mundane.

 

[Gammadoodler]

All your examples I would consider supernatural and not mundane.

Do tell.

I expect that you will wind up proving a point from a later post. Possibly more than one.