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

[Minigiant]

lol yeah thats not it.

But I wanna play Hercules' great great great great greatgrandson Merkucles.and throw my foes out the dungeon.
Into the sun.

 

[Scribe]

But I wanna play Hercules' great great great great greatgrandson Merkucles.and throw my foes out the dungeon.
Into the sun.

Sounds like a unique epic level addon.

 

[ECMO3]

Monks aren't primarily weapon users. 5e monk weapon uses is a patch.

Monks in games I play use weapons more than they use unarmed strikes, mostly because weapons do more damage until very high levels. Moreso if you find magic weapons with either pluses or other boosts.

That 5th level is where the problem starts. You get almost nothing from then until level 11.

This I disagree with. You get a ton from 5th to 10th level:

Fighters: 2 subclass abilities, 2 feats, indomitable
Rogues: 1 subclass ability, 2d6 sneak attack, 2 feats
Barbarians: 2 subclass abilities, brutal critical, pounce, primal knowlege, feral instinct and a feat
Monks: 1 subclass ability, Evasion, Stillness of Mind, +5 move, purity of body, 4ki and a feat

They all get a proficiency increase too which improves attack rolls and a lot of abilities they get.

As a simple example an Eldritch Knight with an 18 strength (let me know if I should use something else) at 5th level swinging a longsword and dueling is doing 14 DPR vs AC 15. The same Eldritch Knight at level 10 with a 20 strength using War Magic is doing 21DPR primary damage to one enemy and if another enemy is within 5 feet he is doing another 5 DPR give or take to that other enemy. That is without considering the third feat he got or using any limited resources.

Another example - a Phantom Rogue with 18 strength and a Rapier at 5th level is doing 13DPR vs AC15 (no advantage) to one enemy and three times a day he will do another 5 to a second enemy. The same Rogue at 10th level is doing 21 to one enemy and four times a day he will do another 8 to a second enemy. Again that is not considering the third feat he got.

To be honest you generally get more from 6-10th level than you get from 13th-20th.

It's just that mundanes that WOTC is okay with aren't sexy.

Mundanes are not sexy, by definition. However non-casters in 5E have a bunch of supernatural subclass options that are both sexy and effective.

The mundane options are put there purposely for players who don't want sexy. That is the whole point of those subclasses. If you want sexy why aren't you playing one of the more sexy subclasses with your martial?

 

[ECMO3]

But I wanna play Hercules' great great great great greatgrandson Merkucles.and throw my foes out the dungeon.
Into the sun.

Ruin Knight with maximum strength and tavern brawler feat. I think you could also do it with the new Giant Barbarian subclass, but I think Rune Knight would be more effective.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've seen almost ever weapon user who isn't a rogue have PAM, GWM, or SS by level 10. Even the warlocks. Even the "noobs".

If I r the DM doesn't adjust feats, these feats are always picked at tables I've been at or heard of.

I don’t think many weapon users in the actual play shows I’ve watched have those feats, and they are generally considered boring amongst my own group.

 

[Oofta]

I've seen almost ever weapon user who isn't a rogue have PAM, GWM, or SS by level 10. Even the warlocks. Even the "noobs".

If I r the DM doesn't adjust feats, these feats are always picked at tables I've been at or heard of.


I didn't claim the hill giant is dangerous. Just that it has too many HP too low of a level and martials' damage doesn't increase as fast as monster defenses without powergaming and magic items.


18 prime stat?
But everyone a few dozen pages back said you don't have to powergame on a martial.

All I can say is that I've rarely seen those feats. If you actually look at the benefits they're pretty minimal at least until higher levels.

But you're complaining about fighters not "keeping up" with a hill giant's HP. Yet a group of 4 fighters (no feats, lowest damage option) take it out easily in two rounds. They could take it out in one round if they really wanted to. No magic items required. Yet you double down on this idea that fighters have to have magic and feats using something that they can easily defeat as an example.

I mean, what does a hill giant having "too many hit points" even mean? That group of fighters using none of extra class abilities should be able to take it out in 1 round?

I get that you don't care for 5E fighters, but you aren't providing anything solid to back up what you see as lacking.

 

[Minigiant]

Mundanes are not sexy, by definition. However non-casters in 5E have a bunch of supernatural subclass options that are both sexy and effective.

The mundane options are put there purposely for players who don't want sexy. That is the whole point of those subclasses. If you want sexy why aren't you playing one of the more sexy subclasses with your martial?

The fact that you think realistic combat is unsexy is weird.

As a fan of real and scripted combat sports as well as action movies, there are a ton of real life martial combat and athletics D&D leaves out and leans on DMs to rule on these actions you consider unsexy.

More reason why some call for supernatural martials.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The fact that you think realistic combat is unsexy is weird.

As a fan of real and scripted combat sports as well as action movies, there are a ton of real life martial combat and athletics D&D leaves out and leans on DMs to rule on these actions you consider unsexy.

More reason why some call for supernatural martials.

Or you could just have more exciting mundane fighting mechanics.

 

[ECMO3]

The fact that you think realistic combat is unsexy is weird.

I did not say realistic combat is not sexy. I said mundane is not sexy. It is in the word - some of the synonyms for mundane include "dull", "commonplace", "lowly", "routine"

I don't think realistic combat is unsexy, but there is nothing at all about D&D combat that is realistic. From hit points, to dice, to damage values, to actions, to the way armor works. None of it is realistic. It is completely and 100% contrived and unrealistic. The entire combat system for D&D is based in fantasy, in some instances untrue fantasy tropes.

As a fan of real and scripted combat sports as well as action movies, there are a ton of real life martial combat and athletics D&D leaves out and leans on DMs to rule on these actions you consider unsexy.

Ok, but I don't think the things you are talking about here are "mundane" either. Action movies and scripted combat sports may be "real life" but they are not supernatural, and they certainly are not mundane. I will also note there are rules for doing a lot of the stuff you see in those genres already.

If you want WWE (scripted combat sports) or Mission Impossible (action movie), stop asking for your martials to be mundane or supernatural because the characters in the WWE and in Mission Impossible are not mundane and they are not supernatural.

More reason why some call for supernatural martials.

We already have an overwhelming number of supernatural martials. We have more supernatural martials then we have mundane martials.

"Some" are calling for things that already exist in the game in abundance.

 

[Minigiant]

I did not say realistic combat is not sexy. I said mundane is not sexy. It is in the word - some of the synonyms for mundane include "dull", "commonplace", "lowly", "routine"

Steak is mundane. It's just cooked meat wit salt and pepper. It's still sexy.

I don't think realistic combat is unsexy, but there is nothing at all about D&D combat that is realistic. From hit points, to dice, to damage values, to actions, to the way armor works. None of it is realistic. It is completely and 100% contrived and unrealistic. The entire combat system for D&D is based in fantasy, in some instances untrue fantasy tropes.

This is true.

Ok, but I don't think the things you are talking about here are "mundane" either. Action movies and scripted combat sports may be "real life" but they are not supernatural, and they certainly are not mundane. I will also note there are rules for doing a lot of the stuff you see in those genres already.

If you want WWE (scripted combat sports) or Mission Impossible (action movie), stop asking for your martials to be mundane or supernatural because the characters in the WWE and in Mission Impossible are not mundane and they are not supernatural.

So perhaps the question should be

"Should martial characters be mundane, realistic, or supernatural?"

Because I think many are thinking mundane = realistic as posters have suggested John Wick as mundane.