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

[Oofta]

Well all 3 aren't limited to one style. All 3 are skilled in melee weapons, thrown weapons, ranged weapons, AND unarmed strikes. Cap ain't a slouch with a gun.

And that's the rub, aint it?

Either the mundane characters get to demand or craft a ton of combat magic items.
OR
The mundane characters get to choose to replicate some of the combat magic items, possibly making them supernatural. A bunch of them.

And? All fighters are proficient with melee, thrown and ranged weapons. Personally I make longbows versatile because I want there to be an option for strength based PCs, but a dex based PC doesn't face any such penalty. But my fix is not supernatural in the slightest.

You don't like fighters, but this post has me scratching my head.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If I remember correctly I even added some stupid exception in case the GM does not think the taunt is appropriate, but you ignored that when you reply here, just like people ignored every exception I listed in the original ability... But screw it:

Mundane Taunt: Every enemy within 30 feet who can hear your taunt and who can be reasonably argued to be in combat must roll a wisdom save against some DC. If they fail they must move as far up to you as they can and spend a reaction to attack you, and you may attack each of them once.

Technically you don't even have to do a "hard" taunt that forces enemies to attack you. You could have a "soft" taunt where the penalties for attacking anyone other than the fighter are so severe that most enemies will choose to do so.

Let's imagine that the fighter has an ability where, when an opportunity attack is triggered, they gain advantage on the attack and deal +10 damage/level (this is just for illustration purposes, not a suggestion for precisely how it ought to be implemented). And let's say we give them another ability, Threaten, which allows them to take an opportunity attack if the target(s) make an attack that doesn't include the fighter, and this OA doesn't cost a reaction. And let's also include a clause that removes any doubt about whether enemies are aware that if they turn their back on the fighter, they'll be in for a world of hurt.

Most enemies that are threatened under these rules will attack the fighter. And if they don't they might very well not survive to attack the fighter's ally.

Also, I would argue that there's nothing overly magical about this ability. If you turn your back on a weapon master to attack their ally, you should expect to get mauled.

I find it a bit ironic that a 20th level fighter's OA isn't significantly better than at level 1, whereas the Rogue actually gets better at being a defender (because provoking an OA from a high level rogue is more or less the equivalent of giving them action surge).

 

[CreamCloud0]

I have always hated how the first thing a fighter, the master of weapons, does at a first level is to choose a fighting style to pigeonhole them into specific subset of weapons.

i'd love if they got an extra fighting style alongside each extra attack they gain, it wouldn't really be OP IMO as so many of them grant mutually exclusive bonuses. (also love if they had access to all of the primal, arcane and divine fighter fighting styles as standard(and add bardic and sorcerous fighter styles too for CHA options))

 

[Umbran]

I have always hated how the first thing a fighter, the master of weapons, does at a first level is to choose a fighting style to pigeonhole them into specific subset of weapons.

So, "master of weapons" is not "master of ALL weapons equally". The latter is a pretty specific trope, and one whose value in D&D is pretty questionable as weapons are currently handled.

 

[Minigiant]

And? All fighters are proficient with melee, thrown and ranged weapons. Personally I make longbows versatile because I want there to be an option for strength based PCs, but a dex based PC doesn't face any such penalty. But my fix is not supernatural in the slightest.

You don't like fighters, but this post has me scratching my head.

I like fighters.

I don't like the dishonest that @Crimson Longinus mentions.

The game is designed for mundane characters to have more that just proficiency. But fighters, barbarian, and rogues don't have the resources to be of the level of skill as the inspirations of the classes in all the ways they are.

The fighter, the master of weapons, has to be loaded up with magic items to make up for their lack of versatility. But that isn't a base game assumption. That's dishonesty. And that's straight up mundane non-supernatural stuff.

 

[Voadam]

The issue is the abilities of Batman, Captain, America, or John Wick are way more complex than any version of fighter in any D&D edition, D&D 3PP variant like A5e, or D&D spinoff like Pathfinder.

Cap's classic shield throw.

Create it without using most of the resources to make his other actions and peak human talents.

It seems trivial in 4e to replicate a returning Vibranium shield throwing weapon.

You have to assume Captain America has his special physics Vibranium shield to start right?

In the MCU this is also aided in part by the Iron Man magnetic glove of shield summoning that Cap sometimes uses as seen in Avengers 2.

In 4e all magic throwing weapons return to hand after attacks by default.

"Thrown Weapons: Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon, from the lowly +1 shuriken to a +6 perfect hunter’s javelin, automatically returns to its wielder’s hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved."

The biggest ask is a shield as a throwing weapon in the first place. Seeing a Marvel vibranium shield as a special material magic item in D&D terms does not seem off even if it is not off the shelf listed in the books.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The game is designed for mundane characters to have more that just proficiency. But fighters, barbarian, and rogues don't have the resources to be of the level of skill as the inspirations of the classes in all the ways they are.

I think there are two main reasons for the dilemma besides the issue of whether you want your mundane to remain mundane or become supernatural.

1. The first being that casters are too powerful when we compare them to our historical fiction (not D&D), so in effect magic should be dialled back; and
2. The second reason is that the hit point mechanic (possibly AC and some of the others) bork the fighter.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The biggest ask is a shield as a throwing weapon in the first place. Seeing a Marvel vibranium shield as a special material magic item in D&D terms does not seem off even if it is not off the shelf listed in the books.

And yet...

 

[Minigiant]

I think there are two main reasons for the dilemma besides the issue of whether you want your mundane to remain mundane or become supernatural.

1. The first being that casters are too powerful when we compare them to our historical fiction (not D&D), so in effect magic should be dialled back; and
2. The second reason is that the hit point mechanic (possibly AC and some of the others) bork the fighter.

1 is a separate issue. But 2 is the part of the core issue.

If D&D says that a player can play a character similar to the mundane heroes of fiction, it is more or less expects the DM to flood the mundanes with a disproportional amount of magical equipment to mimic them.

AKA "Give magic armor, shield, gauntlets, shoes, one hander, two hander, and bow now, Mr DM. Here is my list."

 

[Oofta]

I like fighters.

I don't like the dishonest that @Crimson Longinus mentions.

The game is designed for mundane characters to have more that just proficiency. But fighters, barbarian, and rogues don't have the resources to be of the level of skill as the inspirations of the classes in all the ways they are.

The fighter, the master of weapons, has to be loaded up with magic items to make up for their lack of versatility. But that isn't a base game assumption. That's dishonesty. And that's straight up mundane non-supernatural stuff.

I disagree. I like fighters, as do the most of the people I actually play with. They're the most popular class by quite a bit. Not a lot else to say.