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

[Oofta]

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.


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.

Unarmed combat is meaningless in D&D unless you're a monk. But you also change the goalposts faster than a bald man looses their toupee in a hurricane. First they have to have be able to knock people down except someone pointed to the battle master. Then it was Captain America's vibranium shield except that he can only do special things with that specific shield, as can Sam Wilson who inherited it because it's a magic shield. Then it's "fighters have to have a magic item" which I disagreed with and now it's unarmed attacks. Of course unarmed attacks are worse than weapons, unless you're a monk they should be. It's why people fight wars with weapons, not running around punching people in the nose.

I'm not dodging anything, but when the target keeps shifting, the answer has to shift as well. There really is no perfect corollary to high level D&D fighters. Captain America, Black Panther, Batman (who has a crap ton of items that are effectively magic), Daredevil are some comic book heroes that come close. There are innumerable action movie heroes that come close. But that's never going to be good enough for you because there's some minor aspect of those character that a D&D PC doesn't exactly emulate according to your standards.

At a certain point, the genre of D&D became it's own genre, it became self referential. They're not really based on any archetype other than the archetype of the guy who runs around taking out the bad guys. Without the overt use of inherent magic. That's good enough for me.

 

[Corinnguard]

Which doesn't necessarily make them supernatural.

What counts as supernatural in a fantasy setting exactly? In RL, magic would be considered as something supernatural. In a fantasy setting like Eberron where it's use is more commonplace, magic might be mundane. Imagine that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What counts as supernatural in a fantasy setting exactly? In RL, magic would be considered as something supernatural. In a fantasy setting like Eberron where it's use is more commonplace, magic might be mundane. Imagine that.

Depends on the setting I guess, but to me anything that can't be done in the way it is depicted in the real world (with perhaps some action movie wiggle room) would be supernatural.

 

[Remathilis]

In other words, the martial equivalent of a Sorcerer and PF1's Bloodrager.

Absolutely. With the caveat that magical =/= spellcasting.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I have no problem accepting that 4E fighters pre-essentials had supernatural abilities. That was never the issue. It's people telling me that my opinion and viewpoint of martial powers being inherently supernatural because they were labeled "martial" was wrong that bothered me. Come and Get It was just one example, but my fighter also had things like an aura that automatically damaged everything around them or that I could stun any creature in existence even those I had never heard of.

I guess I just don't see why it was an issue to call a spade a spade. You don't consider many of the martial powers supernatural? That's fine. Just don't tell me that my completely subjective opinion is "wrong".

 

[Minigiant]

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.

The definition, if I am correct, that the OP is using for mundane is not supernatural.

Unarmed combat is meaningless in D&D unless you're a monk. But you also change the goalposts faster than a bald man looses their toupee in a hurricane. First they have to have be able to knock people down except someone pointed to the battle master. Then it was Captain America's vibranium shield except that he can only do special things with that specific shield, as can Sam Wilson who inherited it because it's a magic shield. Then it's "fighters have to have a magic item" which I disagreed with and now it's unarmed attacks. Of course unarmed attacks are worse than weapons, unless you're a monk they should be. It's why people fight wars with weapons, not running around punching people in the nose.

I'm not dodging anything, but when the target keeps shifting, the answer has to shift as well. There really is no perfect corollary to high level D&D fighters. Captain America, Black Panther, Batman (who has a crap ton of items that are effectively magic), Daredevil are some comic book heroes that come close. There are innumerable action movie heroes that come close. But that's never going to be good enough for you because there's some minor aspect of those character that a D&D PC doesn't exactly emulate according to your standards.

At a certain point, the genre of D&D became it's own genre, it became self referential. They're not really based on any archetype other than the archetype of the guy who runs around taking out the bad guys. Without the overt use of inherent magic. That's good enough for me.

I'm asking about the D&D genre.

How many fighting styles is the typical D&D warrior supposed to be able great at?

And how do they achieve this amount: Magic Items or Class Features or Feats?

We know the current fighter and barbarian can be good at one style. So is the answer to the first question "One". Or is it "Two". Or is it "It depends".

 

[TheSword]

Both options would be nice please. There should be a John Wick style mundane martial and plenty of magical varieties of martials - Paladin, Ranger, Eldritch Knight etc

Just leave one squibb for the fans

 

[Voadam]

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.

No.

You are specifically using examples of characters from fiction who have special items and comparing them to martials without items. Captain America is a high level fighter with a big deal special shield in the fiction.

You are ignoring martials in fiction without special gear like Conan, John Wick, anyone from Game of Thrones, and so forth.

Most are not 20th level fiction examples of martials, but there are very few 20th level D&D fiction exemplars of any type, period.

 

[Minigiant]

No.

You are specifically using examples of characters from fiction who have special items and comparing them to martials without items. Captain America is a high level fighter with a big deal special shield in the fiction.

You are ignoring martials in fiction without special gear like Conan, John Wick, anyone from Game of Thrones, and so forth.

Most are not 20th level fiction examples of martials, but there are very few 20th level D&D fiction exemplars of any type, period.

No. I specifically was using examples of characters good at 3 or more styles of combat. John Wick and Batman were 2 of my 3 examples.

 

[Corinnguard]

The definition, if I am correct, that the OP is using for mundane is not supernatural.

The OP merely asked if martial characters should be mundane or supernatural. They didn't define either word. They asked an either/or question.