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

[Crimson Longinus]

It doesn't impose a cookie cutter in-setting consistency where all members of a given class are sent by central casting. And all magic using clerics, no matter how peaceful their area, are skilled with weapons and gain weapons skill proportional to their magical ability.

Right, that's fair. I mean sure, and it really doesn't bother me if some NPC doesn't have all capabilities that the PCs do. PCs and elite NPCs can be more gifted than some other NPCs. That's fine. I really mean about using the same building blocks. Like and NPC assassin should have sneak attack rather than some unique feature that works differently, the NPC casters should have spells selected among those available to the PCs and not some unique spell like powers etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Or, even easier is if the NPCs simply did not work like PCs and be done with it.

Why?

Why it is easier to invent unique features for NPCs instead of choosing among those that already exist for PCs?
And what does this represent? What is the connection between the mechanics and the rules?

 

[Cadence]

Why?

Why it is easier to invent unique features for NPCs instead of choosing among those that already exist for PCs?
And what does this represent? What is the connection between the mechanics and the rules?

The rules are designed to make a playable game - see hit points, armor class, death saves, short rests etc... so that if you squint hard it seems vaguely to match the desired story.

It feels like the point isn't that it's easier to invent all new spells for the NPCs, but that the small (relative to PF1e or what happens in the representative fiction) list of spells doesn't describe the whole world of possibility and that the DM shouldn't be straight jacketed by them?

"The bad guy has a ritual to raise all the countrt's dead bodies and send them to attack their living descendants."

"Disbelieve, no spell in the PHB does that "

 

[Gammadoodler]

Like, with Drax we are talking Alien here. The same with Superman. And in the MCU and DCU, Aliens don't have the same baseline abilities as Humans.
In D&D 5e, all playable races have the same baseline abilities.
Without adventuring/Player or NPC Classes all creatures are around 8 to 12 in any ability score.
So the average person of any race can lift around 300 pounds (lifting is 30× strength score).
Some races like goliath double that, so that's 600 pounds.

That is the baseline. I only now MCU Drax and not comic Drax, but he seems to fit as a Playable D&D race (if I remember correctly). He doesn't seem super strong like Superman, who can lift millions of tons.

Strength also defines how far you can jump, which is strength score in feet. So a mundane person D&D person who gets his strength score to 20 is the baseline for strongest non magical character.
Which, as a goliath would be 1200 pounds lifting, 600 pounds continuous carrying and 20 feet jumps.

If a hero does more than that, he would count as supernatural in the context of D&D.

Thank you for this.

So we have 2 things going on here.

1. Alien is in the eye of the beholder. Drax, Groot, Superman, and the Asgardians are (AFAIK) 100% biologically natural representatives of their species. They are only "Alien" in the context of Earth, and D&D does not take place on Earth.

2. IIRC, the structure of your question was "In their media, are their any examples of mundane characters who can do superheroic things without relying on external power sources like superserums, mutant drinks, etc". The logic you've presented here is "if they can do things beyond the normal rules of the D&D game system, they cannot be mundane regardless of how they got there". It is perfectly self-defeating.

Of course no one can give you an example.of a mundane character who has superpowers without external help.

By your definition any character with superpowers cannot be mundane.

 

[overgeeked]

Why?

Because it entirely avoids the problem you're causing yourself by insisting on building NPCs as if they are PCs when they are not.

Why it is easier to invent unique features for NPCs instead of choosing among those that already exist for PCs?

Because inventing something takes far, far less time than scouring dozens, potentially hundreds, of books for the close enough thing that's a PC-facing mechanic. I have literally zero problem with giving NPCs access to things the PCs simply cannot access. The whole of the fictional world the game takes place in is not perfectly captured by the PC-facing mechanics. Things exist outside of and beyond what the PCs can do.

And what does this represent? What is the connection between the mechanics and the rules?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Then why cannot I make character that learned the magic similarly than the NPC? What do we do if we want to mechanically represent the PC wizard's old rival that went to the same school and took the same classes than her?

If a PC wants the advantages, I think they have to take the disadvantages too. In practice, I haven’t seen very many PCs clamour for either.

NPC A has a neat combat trick that she used against the PCs. She spent 10 years learning this trick from master X in city Y. If a PC wants to learn the trick, they would have to leave the party for 10 years.

NPC B can cast spells without using components. She jammed a necrotic shard into her mind and went insane. Does any of the PCs want to do the same (including the hoing insane part)?

NPC C also has a cool combat trick. He sacrificed a lot to get it, as evidenced by the fact that his statblock indicates he is trained in 2 skills and has no feats. Are any of the PCs willing to give up three skills and all feats for this trick?

 

[TwoSix]

But now this approach needs to come up with houserules for feats allowing taking NPC powers and new spells to mirror the NPC spells. Wouldn't it be hella lot easier if the NPCs just used same spells and features than the PCs to begin with?

Because making up your own rules is easy and fun. 5e isn’t a challenging system to make up new stuff for.

 

[Cadence]

I don't see the benefit in arbitrarily assuming that all NPCs develop in the same way as professional adventurers do. I mean I would expect a wizard who has spent a hundred years learning magic in a tower, barely leaving the library and the lab to be capable of entirely different stuff from a professional adventurer and combat mage. I certainly wouldn't expect the superb researcher to be able to take a punch the way a high level adventuring wizard can.

And why can't you create a lab-wizard? Because they aren't adventurers and one physical combat and they are likely to freeze or fall over. Every D&D character is intended to be a professional adventurer, not a farmer or a cleric who stays with their flock.

Flash back to 3E where every butcher, baker, tailor, and candlestick maker must have gone adventuring if they're skilled (to get the XP to level) and thus Gordon Ramsay (or pick whatever 20th level chef on your planet) is roughly comparable to a 5th (?) level fighter.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Right, that's fair. I mean sure, and it really doesn't bother me if some NPC doesn't have all capabilities that the PCs do. PCs and elite NPCs can be more gifted than some other NPCs. That's fine. I really mean about using the same building blocks. Like and NPC assassin should have sneak attack rather than some unique feature that works differently, the NPC casters should have spells selected among those available to the PCs and not some unique spell like powers etc.

But why? Why is it simpler to assume that all stealthy attacks work EXACTLY the same way rather than to assume that in the wide world of everything possible, only a subset is available to PCs (for several reasons including balance, space in books, rarity and expediency)?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Right, that's the issue. You don't care that the mechanics represent the fiction and I do.