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

[Tony Vargas]

They mean the same thing.

One is more clearly nonsense than the other.

"D&D doesn't need to model genre, it's its own genre," is the same as "D&D models itself" as a reply to the observation that D&D fails to model genre well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I haven't read any of the replies yet, so I have no idea what your statements are. That said, the single one you made in reply to me doesn't hold up. "Not the way it was originally intended to be played" has no bearing on how it is played today. Want to look at D&D 4e and say that because Chainmail wasn't "intended to be played as heroic/high fantasy" that D&D 4e has player characters as mundane? That's pretty obviously not true, so original intent can be removed as a discussion factor for how the game is currently played.

It's interesting that you feel that is not "the way to play D&D". Mechanically PCs can do things a mundane person can't. Jumping down 40 feet and continuing to fight. Getting hit perfectly by a club wielded by a giant and still fighting. Fighting at full strength even when badly wounded. I don't know any players that penalize themselves above what the rules say in order to play as mundanes in D&D - they play to the heroic tropes.

This isn't opinion as you dismissed it, this is observation of both what the PCs can do as defined by the physics of the rules - above the mundane - and how people play them - at the level the rules allow them to.

The current version goes much easier on PCs, yes. WotC D&D in particular has been making things simpler and easier on players using the rules and what they release to enforce a heroic narrative. None of that make a difference to how I play D&D, then or now. I especially have no interest in any conversation about how popular WotC D&D is. It is irrelevant to quality.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Mechanically PCs can do things a mundane person can't. Jumping down 40 feet and continuing to fight. Getting hit perfectly by a club wielded by a giant and still fighting. Fighting at full strength even when badly wounded. I

The current version goes much easier on PCs, yes. WotC D&D in particular has been making things simpler and easier on players using the rules and what they release to enforce a heroic narrative.

TBF, Blue's examples are all as true of TSR era D&D as they are now.

edited for clarity

 

[Micah Sweet]

TBF, those things are all as true of TSR era D&D as they are now.

How is what I said true of TSR?

 

[Vaalingrade]

One is more clearly nonsense than the other.

"D&D doesn't need to model genre, it's its own genre," is the same as "D&D models itself" as a reply to the observation that D&D fails to model genre well.

Except it gave up modeling genre a long, long time ago. You can't fail if you're not trying.

See also: Vancian Casting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except it gave up modeling genre a long, long time ago. You can't fail if you're not trying.

Same Difference, as the kids used to say when I was a kid.

 

[Maxperson]

Most Wizards are better at arcana though. If we are talking your typical 5-10th era play (that is the bulk of most people's playing time). You have an 18th int wizard with a +7 in arcana. A rogue needs to have 14+ int to beat that, or a 16 int once the wizard caps off at 20 at 8th level.

Now can a rogue be better, sure if they want to invest hugely in a stat that doesn't otherwise benefit them. Don't really see the problem, in the vast majority of games, the wizard is still going to be the greatest arcana expert.

This still misses the point. The best rogue(20 int) is still better than the best wizard(20 int) unless the wizard gets expertise. And in the skill that is quintessential wizard, but not at all roguish.

 

[Emberashh]

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.

Its not actually an either/or. You can do both simultaneously, but it does require integration to work. They can't just be isolated systems.

 

[Minigiant]

This still misses the point. The best rogue(20 int) is still better than the best wizard(20 int) unless the wizard gets expertise. And in the skill that is quintessential wizard, but not at all roguish.

That's really because 5e Arcana is 3e Knowledge Arcane +3e Knowledge Dungeoneering + 3e Knowledge the Planes.

I could see an especially smart rogue knowing more about the Plane of Water, Fire Arrow Traps. and the Black Pudding than a wizard,

 

[Blue]

The current version goes much easier on PCs, yes. WotC D&D in particular has been making things simpler and easier on players using the rules and what they release to enforce a heroic narrative. None of that make a difference to how I play D&D, then or now. I especially have no interest in any conversation about how popular WotC D&D is. It is irrelevant to quality.

Great, since I wasn't talking about quality. But by "current", I am talking about quantity. What is played the most, currently. Which of the editions of D&D is 5e. So when I talk about current D&D, that's what I'm basing it on.

If could be that any disagreement you have with the statement is just we're looking at different editions.