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

[Crimson Longinus]

Interesting. So if two people enter a death pact or a pact to get married if both are single when they turn 30 do they get Eldritch Blast as well?

If you did that and didn't get the eldritch blast, you got cheated!

But seriously, it is a powerful magical being making a pact with the character to give them spellcasting. That's literally the whole concept of the warlock.

We already were over this, you don't agree, but to me the similarity is glaringly and hilariously obvious.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yes, that's why we've been forced to change it to verisimilitude.

Realism applied selectively isn't verisimilitude either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but that is why I keep a sliver of hope that we might see the Mythic Martial as an official separate optional class at some point.

It's just trivial to add this mythic origin to the general D&D worldbuilding without any changes to anything else. Some people manifest these abilities, everyone else doesn't and carries on like usual.

To me this is just a question of will. Unlike the nerfing spellcasting which would change the nature of the current game, a separate optional Mythic Martial class that is no more versatile and powerful than the Wizard is simply another option within the existing playground.

They probably won't do it now for whatever reason. But someone gets fired and another managements team comes in with different views maybe they will. And it really wouldn't be that hard or disruptive to do it if the will was there (unlike some of the other options discussed).

I agree. But WotC clearly does NOT want to make new classes. They were essentially forced by legions of Eberron fans to make the artificer, and they are bent on ignoring it ever since Tasha's. Remember their first attempt was as a wizard subclass in UA. That went over like a lead balloon.

 

[Gammadoodler]

"Was that shop always in the city or did you forget to draw one in and decide any reasonable city would have one only when asked?"

Absolutely.. next question..

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just can't agree. There's nothing less sensible about using a detailed chargen system for the PC and a more expedient one, even just fixed monster-style stat for NPCs DMs have enough to do, and there's no harm to the imaginary perceptions of the PCs & NPCs 'in the fiction.
For that matter, there's nothing too wrong with giving NPCs abilities PCs can't have (for instance, because PCs need to be contributing members of ensemble parties, while NPCs can be lone villains....)

Those are narrative reasons. Completely unacceptable as an excuse for bad mechanics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Was that shop always in the city or did you forget to draw one in and decide any reasonable city would have one only when asked?"

If it's a super powerful NPC I prepped in advance it was probably part of its backstory. I may well have come up with the power first and the backstory second.

People make errors. Its not a big deal.

 

[Gammadoodler]

If you did that and didn't get the eldritch blast, you got cheated!

But seriously, it is a powerful magical being making a pact with the character to give them spellcasting. That's literally the whole concept of the warlock.

We already were over this, you don't agree, but to me the similarity is glaringly and hilariously obvious.

Enhh. It certainly is transactional, but the way I see it, there's some physical process where the dragon's blood is being physically incorporated into the biology of the new sorcerer after which the dragon has no control over it.

Basically..

1. Warlocks rent magic and the subscription costs vary
2. Sorcerers buy or inherit magic and some folks get cut out of peoples' wills along the way
3. Wizards hack in and steal magic.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Enhh. It certainly is transactional, but the way I see it, there's some physical process where the dragon's blood is being physically incorporated into the biology of the new sorcerer after which the dragon has no control over it.

I'm not sure why you assume this is not how all warlock pacts work. It really is not defined what the pact actually means metaphysically. There is really no inclination that the patron can "end the subscription."

And in any case, as noted earlier, constant channelling of power would just make them clerics.

Warlocks rent magic and the subscription costs vary

Sounds just like a shady cleric to me.

Sorcerers buy or inherit magic and some folks get cut out of peoples' wills along the way

Nah. Sounds like a warlock. The pact is buying the power.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I just can't agree. There's nothing less sensible about using a detailed chargen system for the PC and a more expedient one, even just fixed monster-style stat for NPCs DMs have enough to do, and there's no harm to the imaginary perceptions of the PCs & NPCs 'in the fiction.
For that matter, there's nothing too wrong with giving NPCs abilities PCs can't have (for instance, because PCs need to be contributing members of ensemble parties, while NPCs can be lone villains....)

Yeah, I agree. I mean you can think of this mechanic to fiction one to one or mapping directly onto the fictional world, but I think it has way more cons than pros.

To be fair D&D has always been all over the place on this and inconsistent.

Hit points, the round as containing more "actions" than the actual sword thrust, etc.

Against spell casting, Fighter and Thieves Guilds as if classes were in world things which I always found weird, etc.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I agree. But WotC clearly does NOT want to make new classes. They were essentially forced by legions of Eberron fans to make the artificer, and they are bent on ignoring it ever since Tasha's. Remember their first attempt was as a wizard subclass in UA. That went over like a lead balloon.

Yeah, right now that looks true. But I see that stance changing as more likely than nerfing casters. But who knows.