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

[Oofta]

WOTC is literally changing that in the next new PHB.

So they found is "what we have now" doesn't work.

And even more Jeremy Crawford today stated that there were high popularity low satisfaction classes and low popularity high satisfaction classes.

They're tweaking a lot of things. There's always room for improvement. Like other posters have stated, if it weren't for the forums I wouldn't know anyone had an issue with the fighter. It's ranked as one of the best classes, people have fun playing it.

All I can go by is my experience and what I've seen over the past decade with a number of different groups. Fighters are not a drag on the group, even up to 20th level they still contribute. They just contribute in different ways than some of the other classes, which is a good thing.

Now if the mundane warrior is supposed to be able to specialize in 1-3 fighting styles and the mundane expert is supposed to be able to specialize in 4-8 skills, then we should just choose whether it is a supernatural or nonmagical process or both.

No, no we don't have to take your assumption of what they "need". I don't want my fighter to be overtly supernatural and doing obviously magical things. Unless of course they're an Arcane Archer, Eldritch Knight, Psi Warrior, Rune Knight or the fighter adjacent classes like paladins or unless they multi-class into a spell casting class or they ... well the list goes on.

If I want a fighter that does magic there are plenty of options. I also want the option of a fighter that doesn't do magic.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

One of the slippery bits here is that when you put the effect before the cause, you lose a lot of people's investment. If I have a character who can taunt, I don't expect it to double as construct hacking or natural knowledge. I expect it to annoy intelligent NPC's - that's a "taunt." I'd kind of expect your Charisma to feature into it. I'd expect to be able to affect foppish nobles more than it'd affect a town guard. It wouldn't necessarily cause folks to attack me (that'd depend on the folks, really).

This is part of what works against a "mundane" character (especially outside of combat) - if I can taunt, that's a verb, not an outcome. It's a cause. The effect it has may be somewhat defined, but no more so than a longsword. A longsword deals 1d8 damage, but it also cuts ropes, slices meat, gets you noticed as an armed brigand at the bar, is an heirloom from your grandfather, etc., etc. It's a prop that exists in a world, not just a button to push that deals 1d8 damage. A taunt is a thing you can do, not just a button to push to get creatures to target you.

Once we start justifying the effect by changing around the cause, we're playing a bit backwards for a lot of people. The point of having a taunt is not so that I can control targeting in combat - it's so I can roleplay a SUPER ANNOYING character who can get under peoples' skin.

Magic doesn't have to deal with this kind of thing because arbitrary limits and abilities are fine if "it's magic." If I use my psychic powers to force an enemy to fight me, I don't care too much if it's an ooze or a construct or an undead or a town guard or foppish noble or what. Magic knows what a "creature" is, magic can make a "creature" fight me, game on!

If you introduce a mundane taunt for the purposes of controlling attacks, then you're in some misty territory where it doesn't always work like a taunt (yes, you can...annoy...the...ooze?) or it doesn't always work for the purposes of controlling attacks (you make the foppish noble angry and he storms off in a huff).

It's like the difference between a mundane "insult" ability and vicious mockery. If these two things work like each other, but are distinct, you get a buttload of corner cases, questions, and kinked assumptions. Just give a fighter vicious mockery and dodge the whole circus.

Two thoughts.

You can give martials more general abilties. Instead of taunt, it's "Make something attack me" -- you are crafty person and good at at all kinds of ways to taunt, trick, goad, intice, etc. enemies into attacking you. Effect is a given unless there really is no way at all to justify it.

Or.

Hand out these lesser abilties like candy. Don't overvalue Taunt with all its DM adjucation. Make it a low level ability and a bonus action. So you are a super annoying character that can get under people's skin. Give some examples at different levels of what this could look like. The DM can decide exactly what works and the limitations but at least you have something part of the character that says -- this guy should able to get under people's skin and do level appropriate stuff that. Just don't value this like an always works spell, even if you can theoretically try it at will.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you introduce a mundane taunt for the purposes of controlling attacks, then you're in some misty territory where it doesn't always work like a taunt (yes, you can...annoy...the...ooze?) or it doesn't always work for the purposes of controlling attacks (you make the foppish noble angry and he storms off in a huff).

It's like the difference between a mundane "insult" ability and vicious mockery. If these two things work like each other, but are distinct, you get a buttload of corner cases, questions, and kinked assumptions.

Or we handwave or ignore the edge cases and those that bring them up forever.

 

[Minigiant]

They're tweaking a lot of things. There's always room for improvement. Like other posters have stated, if it weren't for the forums I wouldn't know anyone had an issue with the fighter. It's ranked as one of the best classes, people have fun playing it.

All I can go by is my experience and what I've seen over the past decade with a number of different groups. Fighters are not a drag on the group, even up to 20th level they still contribute. They just contribute in different ways than some of the other classes, which is a good thing.

I didn't mention anything about fighters being a drag or if the fighter is a problem.

I'm reiterating the OP's question with additional options.

Should martial characters be:
1) mundane without magic items
2) mundane with magic items
3) supernatural without magic items
or
4) supernatural with magic items

Any of those options could work. However you can only design a single class to be one of them.

 

[Oofta]

I didn't mention anything about fighters being a drag or if the fighter is a problem.

I'm reiterating the OP's question with additional options.

Should martial characters be:
1) mundane without magic items
2) mundane with magic items
3) supernatural without magic items
or
4) supernatural with magic items

Any of those options could work. However you can only design a single class to be one of them.

That's true. You just proclaimed that they're annoying as if it were a fact for all tables.

...
An actual character with no superpowers and no supernatural abilities that is of the quality of what D&D says Tier 4 is...

would be annoying to DM for and annoying to be in a party with.

You may find them annoying, I don't, nobody I've ever played with up to 20th level find them annoying.

As far as the OP? I want the option to play a fighter that does not rely on overtly supernatural abilities.

 

[Minigiant]

That's true. You just proclaimed that they're annoying as if it were a fact for all tables.

You may find them annoying, I don't, nobody I've ever played with up to 20th level find them annoying.

What I said would be annoying doesn't actually exist in D&D as of today.

Any I said if they did make that character, their player's turns would likely take 10-20 minutes. That would be annoying to deal with every turn.

 

[TheSword]

So you're saying mundane Fighters should have guns? I accept your terms.

They shouldn’t need guns… a pencil should do it.

 

[Tonguez]

Good enough for some, but not for me. Not under all the circumstances a power like that operates under. Not without some supernatural element.

Why isnt in good enough though?
if I’m playing a sci fi Technician then I’d use my Hacking Skill to “Taunt” a Construct (not sure what the DnD equivalent of Hacking is), so if I have Knowledge: Nature why is it implausible that I understand Ooze behaviour enough to make it attack me? I know irl I can taunt a dog.

whats the easiest way to catch a squirrel? - Climb a tree and act like a nut…

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Olympic level, at level 1?!

Yes. This is a fantasy. Let it be fantastic.

If folks want totally ordinary farmboys and scullery maids, that's what "novice level" rules should be designed for.

Or did you think the kinds of leaps made by LotR characters in full armor were something just any old person could do?

The Artificer. A Magical class.

No. Absolutely the hell not.

Never in a million, billion years.

"Artificer" is an invention of the modern era. The blacksmith who can make supernatural things with genuinely mundane tools is a myth, legend, fairy tale, and folktale as old as blacksmithing itself.

Stop trying to make all supernatural things automatically spellcasters.

There is literally nothing mundane about stealing the colour of eyes, or a Shadow, this is Magic.

No, it isn't. It's supernatural. The supernatural is more than just magic. Especially because 99.9999999% of magic in D&D is shackled specifically to spellcasting. As you literally just showed above.

If one wants Mundane characters, and I do, why insist they can perform Magical tasks? They cannot, they are mundane.

Then don't play epic levels. I literally just said that. Epic characters cannot be bound and gagged by what a halfway decent shape adult male on Earth can do with minimal training, which is what most folks actually mean when they say "mundane" or the like. They don't actually mean the limits of IRL humans, to say nothing of the things that should be possible in a world where you can easily survive a 50' fall by level 13. (4d10 is 22 average, 40 max; a Wizard with +0 Con has 6+4×11=50 HP at level 13, and everyone else has as good or better.) 48', four stories, is the median lethal fall height for IRL humans; it is never fatal for high-level characters, and not even median lethal past level 5!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Two thoughts.

You can give martials more general abilties. Instead of taunt, it's "Make something attack me" -- you are crafty person and good at at all kinds of ways to taunt, trick, goad, intice, etc. enemies into attacking you. Effect is a given unless there really is no way at all to justify it.

Or.

Hand out these lesser abilties like candy. Don't overvalue Taunt with all its DM adjucation. Make it a low level ability and a bonus action. So you are a super annoying character that can get under people's skin. Give some examples at different levels of what this could look like. The DM can decide exactly what works and the limitations but at least you have something part of the character that says -- this guy should able to get under people's skin and do level appropriate stuff that. Just don't value this like an always works spell, even if you can theoretically try it at will.

Those suggestions are moving more toward the narrative end of the spectrum. Not going to work for everybody.