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

[Micah Sweet]

The issue with them is that you’re stuck with the same ones through all the levels. There should be more epic ones to choose from at the higher levels.

Level Up does that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My intent is an equivalent impact, not perfect parity. I'm not suggesting that a high level fighter should cast Wish. But yes, I do think that classes should have an equivalent impact across all levels. IMO, Bob being able to attack slightly faster, while Joe is reshaping reality isn't even remotely equivalent. Neither was the 1e approach of wizards being able to cast one spell per day from a random assortment of spells, while 1st level fighters were pretty good, having access to any weapons/armor that their starting gold permitted them (or they could find during an adventure).

If we take two 5e 20th level characters, without magical gear (because, apart from the artificer, neither the quantity nor quality of these can be assumed) the fighter will basically be useless against many threats appropriate for their level (weapon immunity). Whereas the wizard can still be quite impactful and is largely nonplussed. IMO, this clearly demonstrates the disparity.

Also, "it's always been this way" is not a good justification for anything. It also isn't factual. Like it or not, 4e fighters were far more equivalent to their spellcasting counterparts, and far less reliant on magic items (especially with the optional rule for playing without magic items).

I object to the word need, as if the game doesn't work unless it does what you say. Every version of D&D has been playable.

And I know all about 4e. Its not a path I want to take.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I object to the word need, as if the game doesn't work unless it does what you say. Every version of D&D has been playable.

And I know all about 4e. Its not a path I want to take.

I said that if the wizard is casting Wish or True Polymorph, the fighter needs something to be on the same playing field. As I explained, the implicit intent was that of equivalent impact. Also, it was implicit that if you don't care about equivalence, then they don't need that something. Although I do think the designers of the game should care about equivalence, because the high level fighter effectively being a sidekick to the high level wizard doesn't fit with many people's conception of that fantasy dynamic.

Most versions papered over the issue by using magic items. Doesn't mean it wasn't there. Similarly, I could run a game for a party of 20th level martials without magic items and make it work. I just wouldn't use anything with weapon immunity or significant flight, and certainly nothing that can only be countered with magic. That wouldn't mean that there isn't an issue, just that I can work around it.

5e also exacerbated this issue by making magic items not assumed, and also with attunement. In general, I like both those things. Not assuming magic items, unlike 3e, makes them more impactful IMO. Attunement largely eliminates the Christmas Tree Effect. But that doesn't mean that these changes didn't cascade down into the martial/caster imbalance. Martials are far more reliant on magic items than casters, particularly at high levels.

 

[Scribe]

Reject Modernity.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Taking this at face value that the specific shield is not the key part Captain America is a strength fighter with strength melee attacks and strength ranged attacks that are both decent. That is achievable in D&D.

If his strength is good enough that he hits most of the time though, people will accuse him of being a godless optimizer.

 

[Minigiant]

That is your hangup?

In D&D it is fairly easy to have both a decent melee and ranged attack in the same character.

Rogue sneak attack dagger specialist. Done.

Taking this at face value that the specific shield is not the key part Captain America is a strength fighter with strength melee attacks and strength ranged attacks that are both decent. That is achievable in D&D.

I was more speaking about warriors.

But stating that the rogue has a better combination of ranged and melee than the fighter and barbarian is part of the wildness I speak of.

Because the high level strength fighter having a decent range and melee attack vs appropriate challenges is only achievable with magic items or Houserules in 5e.

They are, or can be if the player wants. Direct comparisons don't really work though because there's no need for a D&D fighter to also use unarmed attacks, that's what weapons are for. But if it matters, take the tavern brawler feat. If you want multiple martial styles (I don't think it's necessary) take champion fighter.

Tavern brawler doesn't give you a decent unarmed strike beyond tier 1. Even the Brawler happy WOTC designers expect magical unarmed equipment.

But that's the whole issue.

People say that this should be non-supernatural mundane characters in the game And then list characters from Fantasy and fiction as examples of them.

Then when people want to play characters like that they say that you can't expect to have direct replication of these characters without magical items.

Then when people request the magical items they say that magical items of particular types cannot be assumed.

Because what is dodged constantly is a description of what a mundane character looks like at every tier of play and how you replicate that example of a mundane character at every tier of play.

Because a level 10 a level 15 a level 20 fighter rogue or barbarian may be fun but it's not what was described or inferred as inspiration. The in-game description and playstyle is someone who is basic at everything and specialists at one or two.

 

[Corinnguard]

Because what is dodged constantly is a description of what a mundane character looks like at every tier of play and how you replicate that example of a mundane character at every tier of play.

One of the definitions for the word mundane is commonplace, everyday, ordinary. So a mundane character is someone who stays at home, goes to work and leads a quiet, if not, boring life. Your typical D&D character isn't mundane because nothing about their life is ordinary. They're adventurers! They have done a lot of things that commoners can only dream about.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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.

I don't really see a problem. Even non-intelligent creatures will have some kind of behavioral pattern in combat, to taunt them you just need to exploit that to make yourself seem like the primary target. To taunt an ooze you may try to make yourself look just the right size for the ooze to consume, while to taunt a construct you could say something that triggers the targeting algorithm in a certain way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One of the definitions for the word mundane is commonplace, everyday, ordinary. So a mundane character is someone who stays at home, goes to work and leads a quiet, if not, boring life. Your typical D&D character isn't mundane because nothing about their life is ordinary. They're adventurers! They have done a lot of things that commoners can only dream about.

Which doesn't necessarily make them supernatural.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't really see a problem. Even non-intelligent creatures will have some kind of behavioral pattern in combat, to taunt them you just need to exploit that to make yourself seem like the primary target. To taunt an ooze you may try to make yourself look just the right size for the ooze to consume, while to taunt a construct you could say something that triggers the targeting algorithm in a certain way.

How would you do all that in six seconds on a single roll?