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

[ECMO3]

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.

Intelligence has always been associated with the Rogue (and before that Thief) classes.

The 1E AD&D players handbook stated the Thief class needed a minimum of 9 Dexterity and that a "high intelligence is also desirable", intelligence being the only other ability mentioned besides Dexterity. The current Rogue gets proficiency in intel saves.

It is not as closely associated as it is to Wizards, and I understand your position, but it is false to imply it has not been traditionally associated with the Rogue.

Thieves in 1E were also the only class besides Magic-Users that could Read Magic, and the only class at all that could do it without a spell (although that was at a high level) and starting in 2E Rogues were the only class that could use any magic item, ignoring class, race and alignment restrictions (again at high level), something that continues with the current Thief subclass.

So it is incorrect to say Rogues have traditionally been tied to either intelligence or magic.

Wisdom is the traditional thematic "dump stat" for Rogues. Again going back to 1E, Thief was the only class in AD&D that could have less than a 6 Wisdom. If you rolled a 9 dexterity, 5 Wisdom and 18s in everything else you were going to play a very bad Thief.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Very likely, since popularity is irrelevant to me.

 

[Maxperson]

Intelligence has always been associated with the Rogue (and before that Thief) classes.

The 1E AD&D players handbook stated the Thief class needed a minimum of 9 Dexterity and that a "high intelligence is also desirable", intelligence being the only other ability mentioned besides Dexterity. The current Rogue gets proficiency in intel saves.

It is not as closely associated as it is to Wizards, and I understand your position, but it is false to imply it has not been traditionally associated with the Rogue.

This is a Strawman. You've converted my argument about arcana skill to intelligence and then argued it. Yes rogues are smart. Smart =/= arcana knowledge.

Thieves in 1E were also the only class besides Magic-Users that could Read Magic, and the only class at all that could do it without a spell (although that was at a high level) and starting in 2E Rogues were the only class that could use any magic item, ignoring class, race and alignment restrictions (again at high level), something that continues with the current Thief subclass.

So it is incorrect to say Rogues have traditionally been tied to either intelligence or magic.

It's not incorrect, though, to say that knowledge arcana was not a rogue skill. They had the equivalent of use magic device. They were good at jury rigging things and figuring out how to trigger items. That's it. Items.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Rogues shouldn't be skill monkeys. Rogues should be light combatants/skirmishers, and everyone should get to be good at a reasonable amount of skills. Because being good at skills is fun and not something that should be hogged by any one class.

Something like this. I'm fine with rogues being somewhat more skill focused than most other classes, but other classes could use more focus on their skills, and some probably should have access to expertise for their key skills. But yes, a big part of what defines rogue is their combat style, so for that reason I would be very careful about giving other classes the way to copy that.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

the wizard's skill isn't that they know Arcana, it's that they know Magic, it's that they can actually cast the whole range of 1st to 9th level magic that the rogue can only comparitively dabble in and know the theory about.

additionally Arcana is as much about the knowledge around magic as it is what's needed to know to actually cast anything

"in what year did Raggalthim of the Crimson Pyre develop the primary rune circle for what would become the basis of Fireball?"

rogue: "that would be 1877, but it is most commonly mistaken as occuring in 1881 due to having his breakthrough in development that year which would directly lead to Fireball but the primary rune circle had existed in completion for a few years at that point"

wizard: "who cares about all that nonsense when you can just cast the spells that stuff tells me about, HEY EVERYONE WATCH THIS!" [incinerates classroom in 8d6 fire damage]

 

[Maxperson]

the wizard's skill isn't that they know Arcana, it's that they know Magic, it's that they can actually cast the whole range of 1st to 9th level magic that the rogue can only comparitively dabble in and know the theory about.

Maybe in your homebrew that's the case, but not in default D&D. In 5e the class literally has an entire section devoted to them called "Scholars of the Arcane" and another called "The Lure of Knowledge" where it talks about what experts they are at the arcane.

additionally Arcana is as much about the knowledge around magic as it is what's needed to know to actually cast anything

Which is a wizards thing.

"in what year did Raggalthim of the Crimson Pyre develop the primary rune circle for what would become the basis of Fireball?"

Yep. Wizards would know that. Rogues, not so much. It's not a roguish skill.

wizard: "who cares about all that nonsense when you can just cast the spells that stuff tells me about, HEY EVERYONE WATCH THIS!" [incinerates classroom in 8d6 fire damage]

Again, if you homebrew your wizards to be this way, that's fine. The rules WotC puts out, though, don't do that.

 

[ECMO3]

This is a Strawman. You've converted my argument about arcana skill to intelligence and then argued it. Yes rogues are smart. Smart =/= arcana knowledge.

No, I was responding your statement that Intelligence is not Roguish. It is traditionally associated with the Rogue

It's not incorrect, though, to say that knowledge arcana was not a rogue skill. They had the equivalent of use magic device. They were good at jury rigging things and figuring out how to trigger items. That's it. Items.

There was no Arcana skill in previous editions, but it was Rogues, and only Rogues, that could read magic without a spell and that is something you would typically call for an Arcana check in with the current rules. Figuring out how to trigger magic items, is another thing you would call for an Arcana check in the current rules.

Further use magic device is about using Magic, not just about triggering it. It applies to things like a Holy Avenger or a Robe of the Evil Archmagi as much as it does to wands.

 

[Irlo]

"in what year did Raggalthim of the Crimson Pyre develop the primary rune circle for what would become the basis of Fireball?"

rogue: "that would be 1877, but it is most commonly mistaken as occuring in 1881 due to having his breakthrough in development that year which would directly lead to Fireball but the primary rune circle had existed in completion for a few years at that point"

wizard: "who cares about all that nonsense when you can just cast the spells that stuff tells me about, HEY EVERYONE WATCH THIS!" [incinerates classroom in 8d6 fire damage]

Again, if you homebrew your wizards to be this way, that's fine. The rules WotC puts out, though, don't do that.

I thought your complaint was that the rules WotC puts out do exactly that. Rogues can get expertise in arcana, and wizards' effectiveness doesn't require even proficiency in that skill.

 

[Maxperson]

No, I was responding your statement that Intelligence is not Roguish. It is traditionally associated with the Rogue

I never said that. I said the SKILL isn't roguish.

There was no Arcana skill in previous editions, but it was Rogues, and only Rogues, that could read magic without a spell and that is something you would typically call for an Arcana check in with the current rules. Figuring out how to trigger magic items, is another thing you would call for an Arcana check in the current rules.

4e I don't know, but I suspect arcana was there. 3e had arcana and it was cross class for rogues. 2e had spellcraft and rogues couldn't get it. 1e didn't have skills at all really.

Further use magic device is about using Magic, not just about triggering it.

No it's not about using magic. It's literally the name. Use Magic Device. And it's in the description of the skill.

"Use this skill to activate magic devices, including scrolls and wands, that you could not otherwise activate."

That's it. Just activation. No deep understanding of the arcane mysteries of the multiverse required. Just how to make the item work.

 

[Maxperson]

I thought your complaint was that the rules WotC puts out do exactly that. Rogues can get expertise in arcana, and wizards' effectiveness doesn't require even proficiency in that skill.

The issue is that the masters of the arcane aren't masters of the arcane(arcana), yet rogues who aren't anything of the arcane(excepting the odd subclass) are masters of the arcane. It's nonsense.