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

[TwoSix]

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?

100% agree. NPCs look different from PCs for in-narrative reasons, and are also generally way more specialized and weaker for their level than PCs.

 

[TwoSix]

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

I don’t play as the fiction flows from the mechanics. I invent the fiction, and then I come up with mechanics that I feel will most closely invoke the feel of the fiction I want to present.

 

[Cadence]

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

So, if my gnome exercise physiologist is observing combat and other activities, what do his notes say about how it works?

With enough observation does he note that levels of expertise bin into 5% levels? Does he note that no one actually ever takes major physical harm until the last blow that knocks them down? Can they map out the distribution of how many people knocked out die and uncover the underlying percentages and time it takes to happen? Can they map combat skill to carrying capacity? Are teamsters vastly less important in your world given how much people can carry?


If not, why not?

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Why? How does it help consistency to say "all PCs, who basically learn from the School of Hard Knocks, are automatically able to learn all spells no matter how people study, live, research, or learn"? To me that might strengthen mechanical consistency but it actively harms the fidelity of the setting.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

No. That's not the issue. The issue is that you regard the mechanics as a physics engine for the setting. I regard them as an approximate representation and user interface.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

This is a big one for me. If I want the “greatest cook” in the realm to have a +18 and permanent triple advantage on cooking checks, but only have 3 hp and no combat training, I just do it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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)?

Because it is consistent, uses and already existing mechanic everyone is familiar with, and doesn't raise questions of why the NPC learned something the PC couldn't.

And I am not really even opposed of some special NPCs having some forgotten ancient spells or secret techniques or whatnot. But those are rare exceptions and I feel the basic stock NPCs most statblocks represent should use PC building blocks. It is both easier and creates more consistent fiction mechanics connection. I really don't see meaningful drawbacks.

 

[TwoSix]

Why? How does it help consistency to say "all PCs, who basically learn from the School of Hard Knocks, are automatically able to learn all spells no matter how people study, live, research, or learn"? To me that might strengthen mechanical consistency but it actively harms the fidelity of the setting.

Exactly. Making NPCs have to follow PC build rules actually damages both verisimilitude and immersion. It just doesn’t make sense.

 

[overgeeked]

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

What? That's not true at all.

I place primacy on the fiction, not the mechanics. If the fiction dictates something happens or is true, then the mechanics must follow the fiction. If it's necessary to invoke the mechanics at all...which it generally isn't. I'm very much a fiction-first referee and player. The mechanics are a poor representation of the fiction and must be regularly changed to match the fiction. The fiction is not, nor should it be, limited by the mechanics.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No. That's not the issue. The issue is that you regard the mechanics as a physics engine for the setting. I regard them as an approximate representation and user interface.

No, I don't regard them as physics engine. D&D mechanics are way too weird for that. They're definitely an approximation. I just want the approximation to still represent something and be consistently applied.