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

[Maxperson]

Because being a master of any skill means being a master of any skill, and while wizards are masters of spells they are focused on being magic users and not ultimate mundane skill mastery, even in the related knowledge mundane skill.

I feel the normal 5e situation of wizards have int as their primary class stat and arcana as on their skill list covers their stereotypical high levels of arcana competence while giving rogues the edge in their chosen skills, but not giving rogues arcana as a class skill or int as a general primary stat covers the general archetypes while allowing rogues more flexibility in their skills concept than they previously had.

This seems to be backed up by the 5e class descriptions in the PH.

"Rogues devote as much effort to mastering the use of a variety of skills as they do to perfecting their combat abilities, giving them a broad expertise that few other characters can match."

"Wizards are supreme magic-users, defined and united as a class by the spells they cast."

Even the section for wizards titled scholars of the arcane is all about the wizards' use of spells.

SCHOLARS OF THE ARCANE
Wild and enigmatic, varied in form and function, the power of magic draws students who seek to master its mysteries. Some aspire to become like the gods, shaping reality itself. Though the casting of a typical spell requires merely the utterance of a few strange words, fleeting gestures, and sometimes a pinch or clump of exotic materials, these surface components barely hint at the expertise attained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study.
Wizards live and die by their spells. Everything else is secondary. They learn new spells as they experiment and grow in experience. They can also learn them from other wizards, from ancient tomes or inscriptions, and from ancient creatures (such as the fey) that are steeped in magic.

It is a specific design choice to allow rogues and bards to have skill expertise in any skill and to give wizards a reinforcing double basis for good arcana checks easily (stat and class skill), but not expertise. It does allow the skill classes to be more flexible skill masters in a D&D game where everyone has a decent number of skills (minimum of four compared to the minimum of one in 3e) in a bound accuracy environment.

It makes enough sense to me and I think it works fairly well in the 5e context.

Other setups are viable too and could lead to different theoretical builds and class upper limits for different potential flavor. You could easily house rule to restrict rogues to expertise in their class skills, or grant wizards expertise in arcana, or allow a feat to grant expertise for the cost of a feat.

There are other quotes in the two classes that change things a bit.

"Wizards' lives are seldom mundane. The closest a wizard is likely to come to an ordinary life is working as a sage or lecturer in a library or university, teaching others the secrets of the multiverse."

"Most wizards believe that their counterparts in ancient civilizations knew secrets of magic that have been lost to the ages, and discovering those secrets could unlock the path to a power greater than any magic available in the present age."

Wizards clearly push hard in knowledge of the arcane and rogues aren't working as sages, lecturers or teaching the secrets of the multiverse.

"Many rogues focus on stealth and deception, while others refine the skills that help them in a dungeon environment, such as climbing, finding and disarming traps, and opening locks."

All skills mentioned in the skill and precision section are rogue skills, not arcana. It's pretty clear that the designers had rogue skills in mind when they handed out expertise. They didn't explicitly forbid it, but they certainly aren't calling it out like they are the traditional rogue skills.

 

[Tonguez]

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.

but how much better would it be if Dwarfs could be be Amazing Forgemasters who craft superios swords and armour by virtue of being Dwarfs, without having to be Wizards too

 

[Oofta]

but how much better would it be if Dwarfs could be be Amazing Forgemasters who craft superios swords and armour by virtue of being Dwarfs, without having to be Wizards too

Why can't they be? What's stopping you from making them be masters of magical item crafting? I do it in my campaign world, Dwarves that focus on being smiths instead of adventuring have made some of the best magical weapons and armor in existence.

No, they don't have PC class levels* but in 5E there are no rules for wizards creating magic items anyway. Artificers kind of do it, but their infusions are not permanent.

*they could I suppose, but to become a master smith takes decades so they likely retired long ago.

 

[James Gasik]

It's not necessarily the case that you can't be an adventuring Dwarf and a master smith capable of making magic weapons- Bruenor Battlehammer managed it (though to be fair, after creating Aegis-Fang, he did retire as a smith).

 

[Voadam]

There are other quotes in the two classes that change things a bit.

"Wizards' lives are seldom mundane. The closest a wizard is likely to come to an ordinary life is working as a sage or lecturer in a library or university, teaching others the secrets of the multiverse."

Sure which seems covered by arcana as a class skill. Combined with high int this makes wizards generally really good at arcana and those who take arcana as their class skill are generally scholars of one type or another. Generally anyone who takes arcana though is a scholar of one type or another. Wizards will generally be better at it than warlock and sorcerer scholars of arcana.

"Most wizards believe that their counterparts in ancient civilizations knew secrets of magic that have been lost to the ages, and discovering those secrets could unlock the path to a power greater than any magic available in the present age."

In the 5e D&D context, secrets of magic that can unlock the path to a greater power sounds more like magical class abilities or spells than the arcana skill. It could be obscure lore knowing the secrets of an artifact that lines up with the arcana skill, but Karsus's Apotheosis spell, mythal magic, or archmage abilities seems more typical D&D paths to greater power.

Wizards clearly push hard in knowledge of the arcane and rogues aren't working as sages, lecturers or teaching the secrets of the multiverse.

Rogues are not typically doing so. This seems reflected by arcana not being on the rogue skill list. Even with the magic scroll using, former apprentice wizard Gray Mouser as a foundational exemplar and the D&D history of rogues using spell scrolls in AD&D, use magic device skill in 3e, and arcane trickster being a core rogue archetype using wizard spells. Rogues need to spend character resources of some type (background skill choice for example) to be sages, lecturers, or teachers of secrets of the multiverse.

Typically I would expect this to be from the sage background which gives the arcana skill proficiency.

SAGE
You spent years learning the lore of the multiverse. You scoured manuscripts, studied scrolls, and listened to the greatest experts on the subjects that interest you. Your efforts have made you a master in your fields of study.

Even the explicit master of a field of study does not on its own get expertise in 5e, just proficiency.

"Many rogues focus on stealth and deception, while others refine the skills that help them in a dungeon environment, such as climbing, finding and disarming traps, and opening locks."

All skills mentioned in the skill and precision section are rogue skills, not arcana.

Again agreed. This seems covered by the rogue class skill proficiencies. Of which they get twice as many as the normal non-skill focused classes and twice as many as they get from their background.

However even the explicitly Jack of all trades skill class bard description of them "Learning From Experience" barely mentions skill related stuff.

"A bard's life is spent wandering across the land gathering lore, telling stories, and living on the gratitude of audiences, much like any other entertainer. But a depth of knowledge, a level of musical skill, and a touch of magic set bards apart from their fellows."

It's pretty clear that the designers had rogue skills in mind when they handed out expertise. They didn't explicitly forbid it, but they certainly aren't calling it out like they are the traditional rogue skills.

Except for the parts about explicitly developing a variety of skills. Given that rogues get twice as many rogue type trained skills as their two background ones and that rogues get a minimum of three expertise skill proficiencies at 6th level (if they choose expertise in thieves tools) they have to have expertise in a rogue class proficiency skill (unless they spend even more resources picking up more non-class skills such as from multiclassing).

I think it is clear that 5e expertise is supposed to be for any skills and supports rogues being an ultimate skill master class.

If you want to be a PC ultimate animal handler expert, rogue is one option.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure which seems covered by arcana as a class skill. Combined with high int this makes wizards generally really good at arcana and those who take arcana as their class skill are generally scholars of one type or another. Generally anyone who takes arcana though is a scholar of one type or another. Wizards will generally be better at it than warlock and sorcerer scholars of arcana.

Nah. Any community college professor just has the skill and some intelligence. It's the super advanced degree expertise professors that teach at universities or have people come from all over to learn the secrets of the multiverse.

In the 5e D&D context, secrets of magic that can unlock the path to a greater power sounds more like magical class abilities or spells than the arcana skill. It could be obscure lore knowing the secrets of an artifact that lines up with the arcana skill, but Karsus's Apotheosis spell, mythal magic, or archmage abilities seems more typical D&D paths to greater power.

The arcana skill is how you get there. If it were spells, it would say spells. Especially in the context of what is being talked about, which is that first quote I gave as well as the one you gave. They are talking arcana, not spells.

Rogues are not typically doing so. This seems reflected by arcana not being on the rogue skill list. Even with the magic scroll using, former apprentice wizard Gray Mouser as a foundational exemplar and the D&D history of rogues using spell scrolls in AD&D, use magic device skill in 3e, and arcane trickster being a core rogue archetype using wizard spells. Rogues need to spend character resources of some type (background skill choice for example) to be sages, lecturers, or teachers of secrets of the multiverse.

Typically I would expect this to be from the sage background which gives the arcana skill proficiency.

SAGE
You spent years learning the lore of the multiverse. You scoured manuscripts, studied scrolls, and listened to the greatest experts on the subjects that interest you. Your efforts have made you a master in your fields of study.

Even the explicit master of a field of study does not on its own get expertise in 5e, just proficiency.

Sages are not necessarily wizards

Wizards are such masters of arcana that they can use it to craft new spells. Rogues have no such ability. They just aren't that good.

Again agreed. This seems covered by the rogue class skill proficiencies. Of which they get twice as many as the normal non-skill focused classes and twice as many as they get from their background.

However even the explicitly Jack of all trades skill class bard description of them "Learning From Experience" barely mentions skill related stuff.

"A bard's life is spent wandering across the land gathering lore, telling stories, and living on the gratitude of audiences, much like any other entertainer. But a depth of knowledge, a level of musical skill, and a touch of magic set bards apart from their fellows."

You missed a bit.

"Only rarely do bards settle in one place for long, and their natural desire to travel-to find new tales to tell, new skills to learn, and new discoveries beyond the horizon-makes an adventuring career a natural calling. Every adventure is an opportunity to learn, practice a variety of skills, enter long-forgotten tombs, discover lost works of magic, decipher old tomes, travel to strange works of magic, decipher old tomes, travel to strange places, or encounter exotic creatures."

Except for the parts about explicitly developing a variety of skills. Given that rogues get twice as many rogue type trained skills as their two background ones and that rogues get a minimum of three expertise skill proficiencies at 6th level (if they choose expertise in thieves tools) they have to have expertise in a rogue class proficiency skill (unless they spend even more resources picking up more non-class skills such as from multiclassing).

I think it is clear that 5e expertise is supposed to be for any skills and supports rogues being an ultimate skill master class.

And they nevertheless should not be better than the best wizard at arcana without having to go to a greater investment like a feat.

If you want to be a PC ultimate animal handler expert, rogue is one option.

Right, because you'd never think of druid or ranger for something like that.

When one class invalidates the specialties of each specialized class, something is wrong with the class that is invalidating the others. A rogue should be able to be very good or even great at arcana, animal handling, intimidation, athletics, etc., but not better than the wizards, rangers/druids, and barbarians/fighters. Every class should have expertise that they can apply to one of the skills that they are known for.

 

[Maxperson]

For Rogues and Bards, as the skill classes, to have a higher ceiling than other classes in any skill the Rogues or Bards have proficiency in and specialize in with their expertise.

For the rogue with expertise in arcana this generally means knowing arcana from their background.

One iconic D&D exemplar of a scholar rogue dating back to AD&D would be Dr. Rudolph Van Richten.

View attachment 320070

It's not that the scholar rogue is a problem. It's that scholar rogues should not be better than the best of the classes that specializes in those things. Van Richten there isn't better than the best Cleric at hunting down undead creatures. Clerics have both his knowledge AND better weapons for fighting creatures like that.

Also, if bad dreams sent by a dark lord were enough to break Van Richten, he wouldn't have been"...as feared by the dark lords and minions of the land as they themselves are by the average adventurer." Already whoever wrote that is suspect.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

You have the power to prove a negative?

Please alert all of Science.

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

How does 'dwarves were able to make magic weapons without being wizards' translate to 'somehow dwarves being able to be wizards in 3e and 4e contributed to 5e's success'?

 

[Maxperson]

Because being a master of any skill means being a master of any skill, and while wizards are masters of spells they are focused on being magic users and not ultimate mundane skill mastery, even in the related knowledge mundane skill.

I feel the normal 5e situation of wizards have int as their primary class stat and arcana as on their skill list covers their stereotypical high levels of arcana competence while giving rogues the edge in their chosen skills, but not giving rogues arcana as a class skill or int as a general primary stat covers the general archetypes while allowing rogues more flexibility in their skills concept than they previously had.

This seems to be backed up by the 5e class descriptions in the PH.

"Rogues devote as much effort to mastering the use of a variety of skills as they do to perfecting their combat abilities, giving them a broad expertise that few other characters can match."

"Wizards are supreme magic-users, defined and united as a class by the spells they cast."

Even the section for wizards titled scholars of the arcane is all about the wizards' use of spells.

SCHOLARS OF THE ARCANE
Wild and enigmatic, varied in form and function, the power of magic draws students who seek to master its mysteries. Some aspire to become like the gods, shaping reality itself. Though the casting of a typical spell requires merely the utterance of a few strange words, fleeting gestures, and sometimes a pinch or clump of exotic materials, these surface components barely hint at the expertise attained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study.
Wizards live and die by their spells. Everything else is secondary. They learn new spells as they experiment and grow in experience. They can also learn them from other wizards, from ancient tomes or inscriptions, and from ancient creatures (such as the fey) that are steeped in magic.

It is a specific design choice to allow rogues and bards to have skill expertise in any skill and to give wizards a reinforcing double basis for good arcana checks easily (stat and class skill), but not expertise. It does allow the skill classes to be more flexible skill masters in a D&D game where everyone has a decent number of skills (minimum of four compared to the minimum of one in 3e) in a bound accuracy environment.

It makes enough sense to me and I think it works fairly well in the 5e context.

Other setups are viable too and could lead to different theoretical builds and class upper limits for different potential flavor. You could easily house rule to restrict rogues to expertise in their class skills, or grant wizards expertise in arcana, or allow a feat to grant expertise for the cost of a feat.

Everything you write there is WHY the best wizards must be better than the best rogues at arcana. If they live and die by their spells and are supreme magic users, they have to also be supreme at the skill that allows them to learn and be the best at spells. Arcana is literally about spell lore, which nobody who isn't supreme at the spells being cast could be the best at. It's also about magical traditions, which nobody who isn't supreme at the magic that uses those traditions could be the best at. And also about eldritch symbols, such as those used in the spells that wizards are supreme at.

Wizards have to also live, breathe and die by their knowledge of arcana, because only then can they be the best at their arcane spells. The two go hand in hand.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Which is also a problem and why clerics should automatically be able to have expertise at religion. And druids/rangers animal handling. Every class should be an expert(expertise) in their major areas.