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

[ECMO3]

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.

I disagree completely, this is one of the best features of the 5E Rogue.

Yes. Absolutely. Every class should get expertise in their traditional skills.

I want to break the idea of traditional skills all together. Tools (and I would include weapons and armor in this) should be from your class, but all skills should be available to all classes IMO with certain classes getting more than standard. I would like to see the classes modeled after the Bard where they could pick any skills instead of being limited to a subset to choose from.

I don't think other classes besides Rogues, Bards and Rangers should get expertise as a class ability, but I think it is fine in the subclasses and feats like it is now, which really lets anyone get it if they want it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What is a non-rogue skill for a class couched on being 'the skill guy'?

 

[CreamCloud0]

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

despite wizards description basically being treated as 'the scientists of magic' in fantasyland

 

[Micah Sweet]

despite wizards description basically being treated as 'the scientists of magic' in fantasyland

Yup. Magic in D&D is in no way "the antithesis of science".

 

[TwoSix]

Yup. Magic in D&D is in no way "the antithesis of science".

Agreed. Magic, in the context of Earth, is the antithesis of science. Magic (specifically arcane style magic), in a magical D&D world, is pretty much the science of that world.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Magic is science? We are talking Mage: the Ascension, again.

j/k that would be Science is Magick

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree completely, this is one of the best features of the 5E Rogue.



I want to break the idea of traditional skills all together. Tools (and I would include weapons and armor in this) should be from your class, but all skills should be available to all classes IMO with certain classes getting more than standard. I would like to see the classes modeled after the Bard where they could pick any skills instead of being limited to a subset to choose from.

I don't think other classes besides Rogues, Bards and Rangers should get expertise as a class ability, but I think it is fine in the subclasses and feats like it is now, which really lets anyone get it if they want it.

I think you are in the minority here. If you want to break the idea of traditional skills, you need to the game to be classless. Then people would just build characters from the ground up and it would work out. As long as there are traditional classes, though, there are going to be the traditional skills.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

A wizard shouldn't have to invest in a feat in order to be better at the wizard skill than a rogue. It should be the other way around. Give the rogue expertise in the traditional rogue skills and if he wants to match or beat the wizard in the wizard's specialty, he can invest in a feat.

Actually, most of the 3e options were real options. They just weren't all optimal. You didn't need optimal, though, to do well at 3e. I chose oddball, but decent feats all the time for my characters because they fit my vision. My vision took precedence over optimizing the character. They worked out just fine.

 

[ECMO3]

I think you are in the minority here. If you want to break the idea of traditional skills, you need to the game to be classless. Then people would just build characters from the ground up and it would work out. As long as there are traditional classes, though, there are going to be the traditional skills.

I don't think I am in the minority and I think this is one reason 5E is so popular.

Even in 5E the game has slowly been moving away from traditional stereotypes, like a halfling with a +2 strength for example.

I like the current class setup and changing it so every class can select from any skill is not going to mess that up. As you already illustrated, any Rogue can get expertise in Arcana at first level and has been able to for 8 years and this has not made the game classless.

 

[ECMO3]

A wizard shouldn't have to invest in a feat in order to be better at the wizard skill than a rogue.

When expertise is part of the Rogue (and Bard and Ranger) classes, then those classes are going to be better than any other at the skills they want to be good at.

The Rogue class is about being better than anyone else at the skills she chooses to be better than anyone else at, that is really the point of the class IMO.

It should be the other way around. Give the rogue expertise in the traditional rogue skills and if he wants to match or beat the wizard in the wizard's specialty, he can invest in a feat.

You and I are just going to have to disagree on this, and the feats are there for a reason. The whole reason the feat exists is to allow Wizards (and others) to get expertise. A Wizard needs to invest in a feat to get expertise and a Rogue needs to invest in a feat (or a subclass) to cast spells.

I would not have a problem with a Wizard subclass that gave Arcana expertise, but it should not be a class feature IMO.

While I am at it a Knowledge Cleric and a Rune Knight Fighter with Arcana proficiency will also beat a Wizard.

Actually, most of the 3e options were real options. They just weren't all optimal. You didn't need optimal, though, to do well at 3e. I chose oddball, but decent feats all the time for my characters because they fit my vision. My vision took precedence over optimizing the character. They worked out just fine.

If you try to make your 3E Rogue better than a Wizard at Alchemy and Scrying she is not going to be viable. You did not have that "choice" like you do in 5E.

Another example - I want my Wizard to wield a Greatsword and hit hard. Easy to do in 5E, in 3E the BAB means this is just not doable, so while I could in theory play a Wizard that maxes strength at every opportunity and takes power attack, their low BAB would make the character not viable. If that is your "vision" you are SOL in 3E. In 5E there is more than one way to execute this vision and be viable.