D&D 5E Should martial characters be mundane or supernatural?

[avengingblowfish]

I think having more than 10 hit points already makes martials "supernatural" on top of all the other class abilities they get that way exceed what a commoner can do...

 

[Minigiant]

If you think about it.

Wizards of D&D not having arcana expertise makes sense.

For all there knowledge, the average wizard invents no new spells. Because wizards are trained how to cast magic and how to find spells in the weave. Most wizards only know the outer surface of magic. The stuff the god(desse)a of magic or secrets or knowledge leaks out in understandable chunks to the intelligent.

This is why they consort with fiends, swear loyalty to gods, or become liches. Because they know only the longest lived get to research long enough to truly understand magic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think Rogues can be better at skills by being better at more things rather than outdoing other classes in what they should be good at from a conceptual level.

Tbh I don’t think the Wizard should need a skill to be master of that knowledge set. Just give them the ability to make checks related to arcane magic, the weave, whatever, with proficiency, and maybe double it at level 6 or 7. Done. If you want to make them better at what is covered by Arcane Spellcraft than what a rogue can do with Expertise: Arcana, just do so. Give them passive always-on advantage on those checks or something.

No need to block Rogues from being experts on the arcane. Especially since in some settings a lot of tech, and thus devices and traps and such, are partly arcane, and rogues in those settings should be able to learn how to deal with them expertly.

 

[Minigiant]

By that logic, every class should just get expertise in it's traditional skills - and fighters in weapons & saving throws - and just toss BA

My Houserule since 5e year 2.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No need to block Rogues from being experts on the arcane. Especially since in some settings a lot of tech, and thus devices and traps and such, are partly arcane, and rogues in those settings should be able to learn how to deal with them expertly.

The traditional Thief special ability to Read Languages and use spell scrolls is a precedent, too.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The traditional Thief special ability to Read Languages and use spell scrolls is a precedent, too.

Yep.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think having more than 10 hit points already makes martials "supernatural" on top of all the other class abilities they get that way exceed what a commoner can do...

How about “magical or non-magical”?

Like the point is that the fighter base class doesn’t rely on anything but skill and toughness and training, and the question is should that extend to higher levels or not?

The fiction of the game clearly treats “having hp” as non-magical. There’s no reason not to operate from the assumption of that standard.

 

[Maxperson]

The Rogue gets Expertise at 1st.
Maybe you're used to playing Bards, who get it at 3rd?

I confused the two, but it really doesn't matter. Rogues should not have expertise with non-rogue skills unless they commit to it via a feat like everyone else. The best rogue should never be better than the best wizard at arcana.

By that logic, every class should just get expertise in it's traditional skills - and fighters in weapons & saving throws - and just toss BA....

Yes. Absolutely. Every class should get expertise in their traditional skills. And no, fighters would get athletics, intimidation and a case could be made for medicine.

Bounded accuracy is not player side by the way. It's intended to bound the DM side of things, so it would not be tossed by giving classes the appropriate expertise.

 

[Maxperson]

I could totally justify it though. Arcana is more about the stuff around magic rather than magic itself (I mean, there's some of that, but that's not the main focus). Arcana would let you know who the Blackstaff is, and who has held that title in the past. You'd be able to recognize magical runes from various traditions. You'd be familiar with various magical institutions, like Eberron's dragonmarked houses, the Arcanix, and things like that.

In computer terms, you can be an amazing coder who has never heard of Alan Turing.

Blackstaff would be history, which involves legendary people. Arcana is about spells, magic items, planes, mystical things and places. I mean, I wouldn't at all be upset if you gave history and arcana rolls to the group as options to know who he was. There is often overlap of skills, like an herb used to brew a potion could be both arcana and nature.

 

[ECMO3]

No. That's simply not true. I can make an uneducated street rat, pick arcana and then expertise and be better than a wizard.

This is what is great about 5E IMO. Not only can you do this, you can do it without compromising your uneducated street rat Rogue at all. She can still be a great Rogue!

The Wizard though could also get expertise through a feat and then beat out the Rogue again .... unless the Rogue actually had a higher intelligence. Either of those would usually compromise those characters a little bit. They would still be viable, but not usually as viable as someone who invested in feats/abilities that were more complimentary to their class features.

There are regular discussions about "lack of options" in 5E compared to 3E and this example illustrates the fallacy in this position. There were a lot of options on paper in 3E, but most of them were not real options and deviating from a core build idea would mean a seriously gimped character. A 3E Rogue could not easily be the master of things Arcane for the party.

Finally I will say magic, and therefore Arcana, is not science. TBH it is the antithesis of science.