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

[Minigiant]

Personally, I hate that somewhere along the line, we had to make a distinction between "mundane" and "supernatural" to begin with. I remember a time when Dwarves could make magic weapons and armor for no other reason than they were Dwarves, no spellcasting required- the same Dwarves who were so resistant to magic they could only be Clerics, mind you.

Yeah.

What's this bull of my bastion's workshop needing casters to make magic swords?

What did I hire dwarves for then?

I hired dwarves for beer and +x items.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, the focus on cowtowing to the wizard crowd has sucked the fantasy out of the game by making everything wizard-style magic instead of sometimes being magic, sometimes being a fantastic thing, sometimes a whom of the gods. Nope, it's all generic 'magic'.

 

[James Gasik]

It just follows from the rules.
The rules were concieved, back in 3.0, as, like "Rogues are the skillz class!" and they didn't think too hard about, what if a rogue managed to finagle Spellcraft or Knowledge: Arcane as class skills and max them out... or, for that matter, an NPC Expert could maximize those skills (in spite of no spellcasting ability) quite easily, since it picked its own class skills. 3e even coined, at some point, the term "Theoretical Thaumaturge" for a character with high Spellcraft and knowledge who didn't cast spells, at all. 4e & 5e, while they have simpler skill systems, did not back off from allowing non-casters to have caster-associated skills, so the idiosyncrasy remains. It's a system artifact.
Whether it's a legit way of modeling a world of magic, I suppose, depends on how you imagine worlds of magic being, and how you concieve of magic. Is magic just like, an alt.physics and scientists studying magic in a D&D world would be able to divine it's mysteries via experimentation (given cooperative casters to experiment with), or is magic something else entirely that defies such analysis?

It could be worse, Wizards know more about Religion than Clerics do!

 

[Tony Vargas]

It could be worse, Wizards know more about Religion than Clerics do!

 

[ECMO3]

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

They don't have a higher absolute ceiling due to feats, but as a basic ability without specifically investing in it; yes the classes/subclasses designed to be good at skills in general or Arcana in specific (Ranger, Bard, Cleric, Rogue, Druid, Artificer and some Sorecerer and fighter subclasses) all can be better than Wizards generally are, and should be if they build towards that and the Wizard doesn't.

If you consider feats in the discussion and assume absolute dedication towards the Arcana skill specifically, I believe fighters actually have the highest Arcana ceiling of anyone - Rune Knight with max intelligence, Skill Expert in Arcana, Magic Initiate with Guidance and Storm Rune. This will give you Intelligence+ 2*proficiency + 1d4 and roll with advantage. I believe that is the highest ceiling available through class alone (including feats).

If you break this down by level, this equals every other combo in ceiling by level 6 (expertise and guidance) and beats even them in average and passive Arcana at 7+. It equals other combos in floor until level 11 when Reliable talent comes online for a Rogue, but it will still beat a Rogue in terms of average and passive Arcana.

 

[ECMO3]

Why does that mean that rogues can reach levels of competency in Arcana no wizard ever could? How does that follow?

It does not and it is not true. Any Wizard can match any Rogue in competency in Arcana and they can do it without compromising other basic class related abilities easier than a Rogue can.

What people are complaining about is that they have to take a feat to do it with a Wizard and it follows that a Wizard should have to take a feat to get expertise to be able to do a skill as good as a class or subclass where skill expertise is part of the class or subclass design.

As I noted in the post above the only class that can reach competency levels that no Wizard can reach is a Rune Knight Fighter purposely built for that, including feats, and it follows for that narrow build through the powers gained from associations with Storm Giants that are not afforded to any Wizards through class or subclass design.

 

[ECMO3]

Yeah, the focus on cowtowing to the wizard crowd has sucked the fantasy out of the game by making everything wizard-style magic instead of sometimes being magic, sometimes being a fantastic thing, sometimes a whom of the gods. Nope, it's all generic 'magic'.

I think it has made the game great and propelled 5E to heights never before seen.

Most players think it is pretty darn cool that Dwarves can play Wizards and at one time this was even the race and class combo chosen by the optimizers.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think it has made the game great and propelled 5E to heights never before seen.

Haha, no.

Most players think it is pretty darn cool that Dwarves can play Wizards and at one time this was even the race and class combo chosen by the optimizers.

Dwarves have been able to be wizards for like decades. I have no idea what this has to be with the genricifcation of magic.

 

[ECMO3]

Haha, no.

Think what you want. I can't prove that it has sparked the popularity in the game, but I can certainly show it has not hindered it.

Dwarves have been able to be wizards for like decades. I have no idea what this has to be with the genricifcation of magic.

This was the example used right above your post to illustrate that there was magic that was not Wizard-style.

 

[Voadam]

I can't prove that it has sparked the popularity in the game, but I can certainly show it has not hindered it.

How can you show what has hindered the game or not?

It seems that as a point of logic you can show that it has not hindered the game from being as big/popular as it is now, not that it has not hindered the game.

The same could be said of any aspect of the game though (pace of product releases, type of product releases, settings chosen, settings avoided, OGL fiasco, Vistani and Hadozee racial stuff, racial palette selections, inherently evil races, marketing strategies, etc.) because it is merely a tautology about the game being popular and containing aspects.