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

[Tony Vargas]

You guys are talking about individuals and I'm talking about the classes as a whole. It's apples and oranges at this point if that's the case. What a select individual can do is irrelevant to a discussion about what the classes represent as a whole.

I'm sorry, if you're talking about the class as a whole, you're talking about things that all individuals of that class would have in common. All wizards can cast spells, for instance, but there's no one spell that all wizards must cast - there used to be, back in the day: read magic, but not in 5e. You can't say, "a wizard who doesn't cast Unseen Servant isn't a real wizard," by the same token, you can't say a wizard who doesn't have proficiency in Arcana isn't a wizard.

You can't say the wizard class is all about Arcana just because it's on their list, so is Religion, and it'd be just as odd to claim that wizards are all about Religion (with Clerics in the game), as it is to note that Rogues can have Expertise in Arcana, while wizards can't.

And I'm not disagreeing with you about that last bit, it doesn't seem to be good design for the best possible Wizard Arcanist to be not quite as good at it as the best possible Rogue arcanist. It's just 5e that disagrees with you. But, y'know, it looks like it's coming around - feats are almost certainly going to be non-optional in the next revision, and as long as feats that grant expertise are available then, too, the best possible arcanist of any other class won't be better than the best possible wizard arcanist.

...

OK, that's Wizard is Best at Arcana the way Fighter is best at fighting.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The portion where you say, "the wizard's skill isn't that they know Arcana, it's that they know Magic" Magic spells aren't a skill. The skills are listed on page 174 of the PHB. The wizard's primary skill is that arcana and they are the masters and renowned experts on that subject. And the portion where you say, "wizard: "who cares about all that nonsense..."

Wizards do care about arcana. A wizard who doesn't is playing opposite to what the PHB says. Now as an individual PC/NPC that's fine, but if you were putting that forward as only an individual example, it shouldn't have been said. This is a discussion about the class as a whole, not individuals.

it's a skill as a small-s skill, not as the thing which is a game mechanic, the same way that bards are skilled at being inspirational, there is not an 'inspiration skill' but wizards get their arcane spell list, and bard have bardic inspiration.

and as has been said, the wizard's proficiency, expertise of lack of either in arcana correlates in no way to their ability to cast magic

I got what you were trying to say. It's just wrong. Wizards do more than just care about casting spells. They care very deeply about the theories, history, and mysteries of all things arcane.

they in no way mechanically need to though

That's actually incorrect. History is knowing who Steve Jobs is. It covers legendary people.

Arcana is "Arcana. Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes."

you mean knowing lore of magic and spells wouldn't include knowing who one of the most significant magicians was? information can fall under multiple categories

They study those things as a matter of course. The lore on spells, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, etc. are the foundation of how they create new spells.

again, mechanically they have no need to have arcana in order to learn new spells

Some guy who happened to "pick it up" shouldn't be better than the masters of the skill and who spend years learning its secrets, and then spend a lifetime ferreting out even more secrets and knowledge of the arcane.

where does it say that the rogue didn't also spend years learning it's secrets? they just didn't learn the arcane (again small-s) skills, the difference is the wizard had to split their dedication between learning the theory and learning how to actually cast the spells too whereas the rogue can just focus on the theory, if you have to split your time between (to retern to my earlier-thread analogy) working out, building your muscles and learning proper health theory the noodle-arm guy who can dedicate their entire time to the theory is probably going to know more than you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's an individual option, though.

And a Rogue taking a high INT, Arcana, and Expertise is also an individual option, and a rather improbable seeming one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

where does it say that the rogue didn't also spend years learning it's secrets?

The 1e DMG, under aging. The starting age for Magic-Users was much older than for Thieves.

Since then, I'm not so sure... I think at some point starting age became only by race, not class, and IDK if that even holds anymore...

 

[Maxperson]

I'm sorry, if you're talking about the class as a whole, you're talking about things that all individuals of that class would have in common. All wizards can cast spells, for instance, but there's no one spell that all wizards must cast - there used to be, back in the day: read magic, but not in 5e. You can't say, "a wizard who doesn't cast Unseen Servant isn't a real wizard," by the same token, you can't say a wizard who doesn't have proficiency in Arcana isn't a wizard.

If that's the case, then you need to get WotC to re-write the class description, because the wizard class description says that they are scholars of arcane knowledge and learning.

You can't say the wizard class is all about Arcana just because it's on their list, so is Religion, and it'd be just as odd to claim that wizards are all about Religion (with Clerics in the game), as it is to note that Rogues can have Expertise in Arcana, while wizards can't.

I'm not saying it just because it's on their list. I'm saying it because the class description is all over it.

And I'm not disagreeing with you about that last bit, it doesn't seem to be good design for the best possible Wizard Arcanist to be not quite as good at it as the best possible Rogue arcanist. It's just 5e that disagrees with you. But, y'know, it looks like it's coming around - feats are almost certainly going to be non-optional in the next revision, and as long as feats that grant expertise are available then, too, the best possible arcanist of any other class won't be better than the best possible wizard arcanist.

Yeah. It looks like they are fixing the issue. The current 2024 UA wizard can pick expertise in arcana.

 

[Voadam]

I see. You guys are talking about individuals and I'm talking about the classes as a whole. It's apples and oranges at this point if that's the case. What a select individual can do is irrelevant to a discussion about what the classes represent as a whole.

Rogues do not have arcana as a class skill. To get arcana they need it as a background skill or take a feat or whatever.

Rogues in 5e have a class ability to be experts in any skill they are trained in. This does mean they can be better at a nonclassic thief skill that is an inconic skill for another class (athletics, arcana, nature, survival).

To make them only possible masters of classic thief skills houserule expertise to be class skills only.

This would mean that the only way to be master of any skill through class is to be the spellcasting bard, not any of the mundane martial classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If that's the case, then you need to get WotC to re-write the class description, because the wizard class description says that they are scholars of arcane knowledge and learning.

A TTRPG fluff description not matching up to the actual rules? Must be a day that ends in 'y.'

 

[The Old Crow]

For some reason, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a tomb raider rogue might be an expert in arcana. If one plans to scout in areas loaded with ancient magical effects, best to know what one's gotten themselves into.

 

[Maxperson]

A TTRPG fluff description not matching up to the actual rules? Must be a day that ends in 'y.'

Hah! this is true. That said, you know me and I've been saying for years that the fluff and mechanics need to match up or a disconnect is created. Disconnects are not good for the game.

 

[Voadam]

Rogues aren't really about combat to me and in 3e they were one of my favorite classes. Skills. They did skills like nobodies business.

That also wasn't my point. My point was that sharing PHB class abilities with other classes and prestige classes didn't detract from the PHB class. Nothing was destroyed and it wasn't bad design.

Skills. Sharing among classes. Arcana. Gotcha.