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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

There already are novice levels, they're levels 1 and 2... and for you probably quite a few after those considering what you want starting characters to be.

Then don't play epic levels.

Exactly.

Just like you don't need to play those early levels and can just start at whatever level you feel is sufficient for your idea of super competent starting characters!

 

[Micah Sweet]

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…

Because there could be three different sorts of creatures in range, and regardless of circumstances, that power works on everything.

 

[Scribe]

Then don't play epic levels.

You also said level 1 is an Olympic athlete. You seem to want hypercharged heroic epic fantasy, day 0.

I want a normal guy, swinging a magic sword, empowered by his gear, and friends to stand in front of a dragon he has no business fighting.

These things are not the same.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There already are novice levels, they're levels 1 and 2... and for you probably quite a few after those considering what you want starting characters to be.

No, these are the worst of all worlds. They force new players into the most grueling, lethal part of the game so they can be able to learn the simpler starting mechanics, while forcing folks who like grim and gritty so-called "realism" to endure overpowered spells and max-HP first level and other faults.

Separate the two. Let the grim and gritty actually get rules that are awesome for that. Let newbies have the smooth, and importantly NOT PUNISHING, starting experience that will show them what the game has to offer without killing their first character in two hits.

Actual novice levels. Not the half-hindquartered excuse for them we have today.

Exactly.

Just like you don't need to play those early levels and can just start at whatever level you feel is sufficient for your idea of super competent starting characters!

Yeah because that's totally cool and awesome instead of, you know, making rules that would actually make you happy. Because that's literally what I want. I want fully-featured, well-supported, well-designed "almost literally zero to hero" rules for the folks who love that, so they can enjoy barely surviving a hunt for rats in the sewers and struggling to leap 5' gaps and whatever else they enjoy because I don't know, their joy isn't mine.

We should totally just tell people "nah, you don't get to play most of the game, you get the crappy untested parts, let us have the lion's share of support and content and you get nothing." That's just swell.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You also said level 1 is an Olympic athlete. You seem to want hypercharged heroic epic fantasy, day 0.

I want a normal guy, swinging a magic sword, empowered by his gear, and friends to stand in front of a dragon he has no business fighting.

These things are not the same.

Sure they are.

That's what actual novice levels are for.

Like I said: Did you think leaping across a 20-foot chasm in full battle gear WITH provisions was something "a normal guy, swinging a sword" could do? That would be impossible even for Olympic athletes!

 

[Staffan]

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.

While I don't really mind a strict taunt, I would prefer the 4e way of doing it: attack me or else. This feels more fightery – you're not controlling anyone, just presenting consequences.

 

[Scribe]

Sure they are.

That's what actual novice levels are for.

Like I said: Did you think leaping across a 20-foot chasm in full battle gear WITH provisions was something "a normal guy, swinging a sword" could do? That would be impossible even for Olympic athletes!

No, but we have things which we suspend disbelief for to keep the game rolling.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, these are the worst of all worlds. They force new players into the most grueling, lethal part of the game so they can be able to learn the simpler starting mechanics, while forcing folks who like grim and gritty so-called "realism" to endure overpowered spells and max-HP first level and other faults.

Separate the two. Let the grim and gritty actually get rules that are awesome for that. Let newbies have the smooth, and importantly NOT PUNISHING, starting experience that will show them what the game has to offer without killing their first character in two hits.

Actual novice levels. Not the half-hindquartered excuse for them we have today.

This is unnecessary, the current way the lower levels work is perfectly fine. They're low powered enough, but still not particularly dangerous if the GM uses the pushover encounters the game suggests for such levels. There are no significant portion of players who have an issue with how this works. The early game is the most popular part, no need to try to fix something that isn't broken. It is the late game that need some work.

Yeah because that's totally cool and awesome instead of, you know, making rules that would actually make you happy. Because that's literally what I want. I want fully-featured, well-supported, well-designed "almost literally zero to hero" rules for the folks who love that, so they can enjoy barely surviving a hunt for rats in the sewers and struggling to leap 5' gaps and whatever else they enjoy because I don't know, their joy isn't mine.

Like I said, what we have is already good enough. You aren't among this target demographic anyway, I am, so please don't tell me what I want.

We should totally just tell people "nah, you don't get to play most of the game, you get the crappy untested parts, let us have the lion's share of support and content and you get nothing." That's just swell.

I mean it is exact same argument you used for people not playing the epic levels. And it is fine. You don't need to play the early levels, they don't need to play the epic ones. Absolutely, perfectly fine. Not every campaign needs to utilise the whole level range. The books could be more explicit about this though.

 

[Scribe]

Absolutely, perfectly fine. Not every campaign needs to utilise the whole level range. The books could be more explicit about this though.

How many adventures, 5e WotC provided, are even hitting Tier 4?

I'd have to go double check, but I'm willing to bet that is a fraction of the printed material/content.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

While I don't really mind a strict taunt, I would prefer the 4e way of doing it: attack me or else. This feels more fightery – you're not controlling anyone, just presenting consequences.

Battlemaster's Goading Attack manoeuvre basically does this:

"When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to goad the target into attacking you. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll, and the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the target has disadvantage on all attack rolls against targets other than you until the end of your next turn."