D&D 5E (2014) Should martial characters be mundane or supernatural?

[Remathilis]

The fact that the martials don't meet their full potential in attack and damage means they lack the leeway to branch out.

Or in layman's terms, a fighter with 12 STR should have the accuracy and damage of a cleric with 22 STR (Giants gauntlets) because the fighter really knows how to fight.

Kinda how OS fighters could have meh combat scores but still be terrors on the battlefield.

But you recreate the problem of a fighter who can never miss and a cleric that can never hit. A monster who is a challenge to the cleric is a slog to the fighter and the one challenging to the fighter is deadly to the cleric. One of the best parts of 5e has been the fact that the math keeps classes who aren't dedicated warriors competitive but not superior in combat. I don't want to get back to fighters who only miss on a 1, but a rogue rolls a 20 or misses.

 

[Voadam]

without having to invest their ASI in their main attacking stat but remaining competetive due to inherent class bonuses lets them invest those ASI into less mandatory areas, you could actually make a fighter who's good in INT or CHA and not dragging behind in combat because their STR is a 14.

I thought the argument was that mundane stats and skills alone were not the match of the supernatural stuff.

I feel you can make a high int or high cha fighter who is competitive combat wise in base 5e. If doing point buy take the three 15s options and put them in strength, con, and choice. Dump dex for heavy armor and not sweat the two other stats. Maxxing out strength and con from there on you can still be a decent face with a 15 charisma and persuasion from background. Not maxxed out expertise with 20 charisma but definitely good.

It is far easier to do in 5e than in say 3e.

 

[Remathilis]

without having to invest their ASI in their main attacking stat but remaining competetive due to inherent class bonuses lets them invest those ASI into less mandatory areas, you could actually make a fighter who's good in INT or CHA and not dragging behind in combat because their STR is a 14.

I think there is a world where D&D classes are divorced from prime ability stats and it's possible to be a non-strong fighter or a non-smart wizard. 5e isn't at that point.

 

[Voadam]

I think there is a world where D&D classes are divorced from prime ability stats and it's possible to be a non-strong fighter or a non-smart wizard. 5e isn't at that point.

I think nonstrength dex fighters are viable in 5e. Probably one of the few options where there is a competitive alternative to the normal prime stat.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I thought the argument was that mundane stats and skills alone were not the match of the supernatural stuff.

well, they're still not, but the point is that not being required to focus your main stat to keep up to the bar with everyone else lets you explore other areas a bit more without feeling like you're sacrificing your main competence.

I feel you can make a high int or high cha fighter who is competitive combat wise in base 5e. If doing point buy take the three 15s options and put them in strength, con, and choice. Dump dex for heavy armor and not sweat the two other stats. Maxxing out strength and con from there on you can still be a decent face with a 15 charisma and persuasion from background. Not maxxed out expertise with 20 charisma but definitely good.

you can be 'good' in T1 and maybe acceptable in T2 but as soon as the CHA-social focused classes really start stretching their chops you're going to quickly get outstripped in what you can meaningfully contribute.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To a certain extent, BA means everyone can contribute when checks come up. To a similar extent, the actual contribution, sans magic, is the result of your die roll, so its not terribly meaningful - until, yes, you're at a higher Tier with hight stat & Expertise (& possibly some other bonus), and your bonus can overwhelm the d20 a bit.
FWIW

 

[Voadam]

To a certain extent, BA means everyone can contribute when checks come up. To a similar extent, the actual contribution, sans magic, is the result of your die roll, so its not terribly meaningful - until, yes, you're at a higher Tier with hight stat & Expertise (& possibly some other bonus), and your bonus can overwhelm the d20 a bit.
FWIW

Yeah, and help to give advantage is a great incentive for anyone to participate with a buddy even in things they are not great in.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I ran the Moria portion of the fellowship in 1e, 3.5, and 4e, and, 4e actually handled it the best. You can have an all-martial but for one reluctant-to-cast wizard in 4e without having to completely re-jigger everything, just, like, Aragorn becomes a Warlord.

5e is very far from Tolkien, because it's so much higher-magic, 5e, in particular, weights to classes heavily towards spellcasting, 5e without spells going off in every encounter isn't 5e.
Anime, OTOH, has sub-genres that cleave closely to video game conventions (which were inspired by D&D early on), and outright rip off D&D (like, oh, Slayers & Record of Lodoss War, to date myself). D&D does Isekai strangely well, too, especially in the 'immersive' mode some prefer.

Yeah, I have to agree 5e is too built-in high magic to do Tolkien or S&S well without extensive mods (like AiME for example). 4e can perhaps do it better, but only if you're prepared to take everything else that comes with playing 4e. Otherwise, pre-WotC D&D or the OSR are better ways to go (my preference, of course).

 

[Micah Sweet]

But you recreate the problem of a fighter who can never miss and a cleric that can never hit. A monster who is a challenge to the cleric is a slog to the fighter and the one challenging to the fighter is deadly to the cleric. One of the best parts of 5e has been the fact that the math keeps classes who aren't dedicated warriors competitive but not superior in combat. I don't want to get back to fighters who only miss on a 1, but a rogue rolls a 20 or misses.

I'm not actually a big fan of BA. It levels the playing field too much such that classes that are supposed to be superior at fighting (like the fighter) aren't really, because we need to artificially raise up PCs who have no in-universe reason to be great at combat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4e can perhaps do it better, but only if you're prepared to take everything else that comes with playing 4e. Otherwise, pre-WotC D&D or the OSR are better ways to go (my preference, of course).

lolyeah, class balance can be hard to take ;P
Seriously, tho, 1e AD&D had, like these clear LotR references, especially in spells and magic items, "Gandalf was a 5th level magic-user" (based on the spells he cast) also meant the spells Gandalf cast were added to D&D. Glowing magic swords & daggers, +1/+2 vs goblinoids, rings of invisibility and elemental command, the staff of power & of the magi, they cursed Crystal Hypnosis Ball (srsly?), and so forth. It was overblown, at the time, really (as much as I liked it a the time), people read too much into it and thought it was just an unauthorized JRRT rpg, when it also drew heavily on REH and Moorcock and Lovecraft &c.
But, if you just ran it straight, Fighter, Cleric, MU, & Thief, trusted the treasure types & tables, it was higher-magic than middle earth tended to be, both in terms of there being more and more sorts of casters both in the world and in any given party, and in terms of more (and more minor) magic items.