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

[Minigiant]

I think if we are discussing whether or not the fighters (or other martials) should be mundane, we need to look at it through what that class should do, not through what other classes can do.

That's is the discussion.

The gap between a level 10 fighter's stats and a CR 12 Archmage's stats to not great enough to me

 

[Remathilis]

I think it's less about game balance and sitting out and more about the gap between.

The Fighter used to have double the base HP and Attack modifier of the untrained of the same level. Even in old school terms,the mundane martial should have Expertise with Attack roll, adding double their proficiency modifier with weapon attack.

Basically the Precision attack should be on every martial attack with warriors having the skill to find the unguarded neck of a foe with increasing experience.

And Mike Tyson punches for 25d6+Str damage.

The fighter's problem isn't that they aren't hitting or doing enough damage. We don't need to toss bounded accuracy into the bin. It's that they don't do much else. They don't fly, teleport or have instant movement. They can't dominate or beguile someone, instantly learn knowledge, or secure a rest free of interruption. You can dial the numbers up to 9000 and the wizard still has the ability to shut him down by flying away.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The fighter's problem isn't that they aren't hitting or doing enough damage. We don't need to toss bounded accuracy into the bin. It's that they don't do much else. They don't fly, teleport or have instant movement. They can't dominate or beguile someone, instantly learn knowledge, or secure a rest free of interruption. You can dial the numbers up to 9000 and the wizard still has the ability to shut him down by flying away.

eh, i do think the fighter specifically should break bounded accuracy personally, or at least give it a good few sizable cracks, but i do agree with the rest of what you're saying.

 

[Voadam]

You had it in AD&D 1E too. Single-class fighters (and Rangers) could get weapon specialization. Others, including Paladins, Barbarians and Cavaliers and anyone who multiclassed could not.

Paladins and Cavaliers got a different mechanich that gave them more attacks, increased their hit but not damage, while also not giving up weapon proficiencies.

Dual class fighters or Rangers could have specialization though.

Mundane 1e fighters and supernatural (druid and magic user spell casting) fighter subclass rangers could get 1e Unearthed Arcana weapon specialization and double weapon specialization. 1e mundane cavaliers got their own weapon stuff and supernatural cavalier subclass paladins got the cavalier weapon abilities as well.

This was a martial versus non martial split, not a mundane martial versus supernatural martial split.

 

[Tony Vargas]

we know that teleportation accesses other dimensions, so it doesn't even violate the law if it exists, because the other dimension might have different laws.

Just like the fantasy world clearly has different laws.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Saying fighters should not be mundane because of a gap with casters really takes the discussion completely off the rails and makes it about game balance and not what classes should be.

Classes are a game construct. If they're presented as equally-weighted choices (as they are in all WotC editions), then what they should be, is balanced.

Even if you want to start with the concept of martial classes, and conclude that you want to limit them to concepts you consider mundane, or extraordinary, or superhuman at high levels, or supernatural, once you've set that restriction, and it's limited the effectiveness of those classes, then classes that you want to use supernatural concepts, must be limited to that same degree of effectiveness, so the game can be balanced.

 

[Maxperson]

Just like the fantasy world clearly has different laws.

Maybe. Or maybe we gloss over them a bit in order to keep the game from becoming too boring. That's up to the group to decide.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe. Or maybe we gloss over them a bit in order to keep the game from becoming too boring.

What could possibly be boring about a fantasy world that actually is a fantasy world? Why go to the trouble of imagining one, if you find the fantastic boring?

 

[Oofta]

What could possibly be boring about a fantasy world that actually is a fantasy world? Why go to the trouble of imagining one, if you find the fantastic boring?

Some people envision Tolkien, Some people envision anime. I prefer something closer to the former and don't want to play a game based on the latter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Some people envision Tolkien, Some people envision anime. I prefer something closer to the former and don't want to play a game based on the latter.

I mean, in Tolkien, virtually all the protagonist/supporting cast were "martial" and the wizard didn't do that much magic on screen, and resorted to wielding a sword much of the time in combat. There were not many magic items, but they were pretty powerful or significant. There was no Cleric and basically no magical healing - Aragorn used a possibly magical herb to heal someone, IIRC - and a real dearth of treasure-hunting. Moria was the only 'Dungeon,' Smaug the only Dragon.

How well does D&D really do that? Especially with, like, the party in the hobbit being all fighters & one thief, and the whole fellowship concentrated in Fighter & Rogue, with Aragorn and Gandalf the outlying Ranger & Wizard?

D&D doesn't do JRRT, or Anime or anything else - D&D just does D&D.