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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Without a doubt, but it still doesn't hold a candle to practical 5e play at the table in that regard.

And come on. Class balance isn't all that comes with playing 4e (assuming you're even comfortable with how they achieved said balance, which I'm not) and you know it.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I don't want to go back to the 3e/Pathfinder problem again though.

DM the Dragons AC is 33.
Fighter: only 33? I only need to roll a 6 or better!
Cleric: hmmm. 33. I guess I spend the first three rounds casting buffs to get my to hit up enough to hit it.
Wizard. Yeah? What's it's touch AC? Actually, nevermind, I'll just target it's poor Reflex save.
Rogue: uh, c'mon nat 20. That's the only way I hit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't want to go back to the 3e/Pathfinder problem again though.

DM the Dragons AC is 33.
Fighter: only 33? I only need to roll a 6 or better!
Cleric: hmmm. 33. I guess I spend the first three rounds casting buffs to get my to hit up enough to hit it.
Wizard. Yeah? What's it's touch AC? Actually, nevermind, I'll just target it's poor Reflex save.
Rogue: uh, c'mon nat 20. That's the only way I hit.

I know this idea is radically unpopular in general around here, but perhaps there is something in between the extremes being assumed? Crazy, I know.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And come on. Class balance isn't all that comes with playing 4e (assuming you're even comfortable with how they achieved said balance, which I'm not) and you know it.

It's not quite the only thing - there's also skill challenges opening up the other two pillars a bit, for instance - but it's the significant thing.

On topic, 4e put it's very-clearly-defined Martials firmly between 'mundane' and 'supernatural' explicitly being neither.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not quite the only thing - there's also skill challenges opening up the other two pillars a bit, for instance - but it's the significant thing.

On topic, 4e put it's very-clearly-defined Martials firmly between 'mundane' and 'supernatural' explicitly being neither.

That it does. But whether or not that's a good thing is quite subjective.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That it does. But whether or not that's a good thing is quite subjective.

Meh. Subjective is subjective. 4e happened to narrow the martial-caster gap by both nerfing casters and building up martials beyond the theoretical limits of the utterly mundane, but not to the clearly supernatural, which was not as badly at odds with genre as what other editions have done in creating, expanding, and restoring that gap.

 

[Staffan]

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.

Fighters are still superior at fighting. It's just that this superiority isn't shown through accuracy but through extra attacks, fighting styles, action surge, and assorted subclass things like superiority dice. But that means they don't do more on an attack-for-attack basis.

 

[Remathilis]

I know this idea is radically unpopular in general around here, but perhaps there is something in between the extremes being assumed? Crazy, I know.

Considering the alternative was 4e's "everything scales upwards forever at the same rate", bounded accuracy WAS the in-between.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't want to go back to the 3e/Pathfinder problem again though.

DM the Dragons AC is 33.
Fighter: only 33? I only need to roll a 6 or better!
Cleric: hmmm. 33. I guess I spend the first three rounds casting buffs to get my to hit up enough to hit it.
Wizard. Yeah? What's it's touch AC? Actually, nevermind, I'll just target it's poor Reflex save.
Rogue: uh, c'mon nat 20. That's the only way I hit.

There is no need for inflated AC.

The Fighter could have Expertise in Weapon attacks so at level 5, his base attack is +6. This makes a range of +6 to +10 depending on mods.

The nonmartial is rocking a base of +3 for a range of +3 to +8. But they are more likely to benefit from things like Cantrips to having magic buffs to utilizing saved to applying advantage and not running straight weapon rolls

If you want every class to swing unbuffed pointed sticks at the same target without futility nor inflation of HP/damage, you can't run a simple system.

Something has to give to get a specific feel.

 

[Minigiant]

Fighters are still superior at fighting. It's just that this superiority isn't shown through accuracy but through extra attacks, fighting styles, action surge, and assorted subclass things like superiority dice. But that means they don't do more on an attack-for-attack basis.

Yup.

Basically to keep the accuracy bonus down, WOTC inflated number of attacks and damage bonuses.

So instead of level 11 being +17/+12/+7 to hit, 1d8+9 damage, is +9/+9/+9/+9/+9/+9 to hit, 1d8+1d10+7+Topple