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

[Maxperson]

Skills. Sharing among classes. Arcana. Gotcha.

Absolutely. Rogues should be able to learn arcana if they want to pick the background or take it via a feat, just as feats can give them some bit of spellcasting. It doesn't step on the toes of or detract from the wizard for a rogue to have the skill or some spellcasting ability. However, wizards should be experts at arcana as it's one of their main things and no rogue without investing in a feat, should be as good at the skill as the best wizard.

That quote of mine there doesn't contradict anything that I'm saying here.

 

[brehobit]

I'm a big fan of martials having the choice to be mundane, but not a requirement. 5e has the Battlemaster for the fighter, the other non-magical fighters are pretty bad. Rogue also has a limited number of non-magical options that don't suck.

On that note, see my proposal for an improved Banneret I'd love feedback on.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/making-a-useful-banneret-purple-dragon-knight.700563/

 

[Stalker0]

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.

Well if it makes you feel better, a guidance cleric can actually get higher than both of them (at least at the 5-9 ish levels). And of course the bard can make anyone the ultimate arcana expert with bardic knowledge.

 

[Aldarc]

View attachment 313171

There is a word in German that I have come to love: "jein." It is a portmanteu of yes ("ja") and no ("nein"). It's so useful that it has become part of my speech in English.

 

[Cadence]

I'm reading volume 2 of Wesley Chu's fantasy series "The War Arts Saga" (The Art of Prophecy followed by the just released Art of Destiny so far). I really enjoyed volume 1 and volume 2 has sucked me in again.

I really, really, really, want an official 5e adaptation of the different War Arts in the series (different weapons, balance on attack/defense, special moves like air walking, bouncing around like lightning flashes, shadow walking, mental suggestion to distract people....).

If people really want only mundane Fighters, maybe a War Artist class for the other side.

 

[ECMO3]

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

RAW they don't even need intelligence to learn new spells.

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.

This is a great post and I will use some real life examples:

1. A professional race car driver can do phenominal things with a car that the average citizen can't. They also generally know more about kinematics and dynamics than most people and a few race car drivers are even experts in this.

Just about any engineer or physicist though is going to be able to describe in detail the forces and moments acting on a race car. They will generally be able to do this regardless of their specific field of study. None of them can drive as well as a professional driver and many of them are terrible drivers behind the wheel.

In this example the race car driver is the Wizard, the engineer is the non-Wizard who knows more academically about what the Wizard does.

2. A typical Soldier or Marine is a marksman able to outperform over 99% of the general population when it comes to shooting a rifle. Many of them are also experts in weaponry and the mechanics and operations in general. However many others are not.

Meanwhile there are millions of Americans who are not great shots with a rifle but can talk about how one operates in detail, and know more about this than many of those soldiers or Marines.

In this example the Marine is the Wizard and most of them are experts on weaponry, but there are also experts outside the field who do not use weapons yet know just as much or more about them.

 

[Maxperson]

RAW they don't even need intelligence to learn new spells.

That's not really relevant. Atypical wizards don't in any way prove or even indicate that wizards as a whole shouldn't be the best at arcana. It just means that the rare dumb wizard isn't the best.

1. A professional race car driver can do phenominal things with a car that the average citizen can't. They also generally know more about kinematics and dynamics than most people and a few race car drivers are even experts in this.

Just about any engineer or physicist though is going to be able to describe in detail the forces and moments acting on a race car. They will generally be able to do this regardless of their specific field of study. None of them can drive as well as a professional driver and many of them are terrible drivers behind the wheel.

This isn't the example you think it is. It's actually irrelevant as well. This debate isn't about doing. It's about KNOWING and the rogue(driver) isn't going to know as much as the wizards(engineers and physicists) do about how he does what he does. If by some rare chance one of the rogues(drivers) does know as much, it's because he got the equivalent of a diploma(picked up a feat) in the field.

In this example the race car driver is the Wizard, the engineer is the non-Wizard who knows more academically about what the Wizard does.

Except this is the opposite of what the 5e PHB says. It says the wizard is the arcane scholar who teaches arcane secrets at universities. And it says that the rogue is an expert at sneaking, hiding, etc. That the mechanic doesn't match the rogue lore creates a disconnect and is therefore a mistake. It's always a mistake when lore and mechanics don't line up.

2. A typical Soldier or Marine is a marksman able to outperform over 99% of the general population when it comes to shooting a rifle. Many of them are also experts in weaponry and the mechanics and operations in general. However many others are not.

Meanwhile there are millions of Americans who are not great shots with a rifle but can talk about how one operates in detail, and know more about this than many of those soldiers or Marines.

In this example the Marine is the Wizard and most of them are experts on weaponry, but there are also experts outside the field who do not use weapons yet know just as much or more about them.

No. The marine is the rogue and the American is the wizard.

I mean, you can continue to give examples that don't line up to what the PHB says about wizards, but the examples will continue to be wrong if you do that. RAW says Wizards are scholars and experts at arcana. The mechanic like the rogue doesn't match up to that, at least not until the latest UA which finally gets it right and corrects the mistake caused by the disconnect.

 

[ECMO3]

This isn't the example you think it is. It's actually irrelevant as well. This debate isn't about doing. It's about KNOWING and the rogue(driver) isn't going to know as much as the wizards(engineers and physicists) do about how he does what he does. If by some rare chance one of the rogues(drivers) does know as much, it's because he got the equivalent of a diploma(picked up a feat) in the field.

It is the perfect example. The Race car driver uses the race car, the wizard uses the spells. Others know more about the car than the race car driver, others no more about the spells than the Wizard.

Except this is the opposite of what the 5e PHB says. It says the wizard is the arcane scholar who teaches arcane secrets at universities. And it says that the rogue is an expert at sneaking, hiding, etc. That the mechanic doesn't match the rogue lore creates a disconnect and is therefore a mistake. It's always a mistake when lore and mechanics don't line up.

The lore is meant to be a stereotype or norm, just like saying Tieflings are usually evil with their nature the result of an "ancient sin" or that Dwarves have "a burning hatred of Goblins and Orcs".

Does this mean you can't play a good Tiefling or that you can't have a Dwarf and Goblin PC in the same party since it states in the PHB that the Dwarf hates the Goblin?

While it is ok to lean into that kind of archetype, the game has moved away to more diversity in its story and mechanic ties. Saying the Wizard must be the Arcane expert is about as backwards in the modern game as saying that a Halfling can only choose to play a Thief or Fighter as a class or that a Cleric is a healer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

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.

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.

Wait a minute. Are people actually arguing here that it makes sense for rogues to have a higher ceiling for arcane knowledge than wizards?

 

[Maxperson]

Wait a minute. Are people actually arguing here that it makes sense for rogues to have a higher ceiling for arcane knowledge than wizards?

Yes.