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

[ECMO3]

That's is the discussion.

No it is not. Not on this thread, and if you are worried about balancing the fighter class, then you aren't really worried about what then fighter class would be. Your driver is balance.

It is super easy to balance fighters"
Give all monsters -4hps per CR
Give all monsters +1 on saves and ability checks per CR
Eliminate constitution bonuses to hps for PCs.

These three things alone would more than make up for the difference between casters and non-casters in combat without touching the classes at all.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

You call this a "problem" but most who play fighters and don't get these things through classes, subclasses, fearts or multiclasses think this is a benefit of the class.

People play fighters that don't have the things you mention because they want to play characters who don't have those things. If they want those things then they will have them on their character .... even if their character is a Fighter.

 

[Minigiant]

No it is not. Not on this thread, and if you are worried about balancing the fighter class, then you aren't really worried about what then fighter class would be. Your driver is balance.

It is super easy to balance fighters"
Give all monsters -4hps per CR
Give all monsters +1 on saves and ability checks per CR
Eliminate constitution bonuses to hps for PCs.

These three things alone would more than make up for the difference between casters and non-casters in combat without touching the classes at all.

My driver isn't balance. It's creating the mundane/extraordinary feats D&D leaves out.

For example,in the real world and modern fiction has the concept of the sniper well sniping an important individual and their bodyguards.
D&D doesn't allow that feat unless the targets are all very weak. Something that is not necessary in the real world nor fiction.
A swordsman could slash at a giant's ankles and have it hobbling for the remainder of the encounter.
D&D doesn't allow that feat. It takes special circumstances to do it and it only lasts a single turn.
The fiction detective can walk into a room and instantly learn a load of facts and quickly learn more with investigation.
D&D doesn't support that feat and makes it appear only if the DM desires it.

Can martials be mundane? Yes. Should they? Yes if the player chooses.
It's just that D&D only supposes a certain type of mundane. And it barely entertains other mundane feats and shuns others.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

That opinion is well and good, but it is a different discussion than what we are discussing here and if that is where you are coming from then really your post is about balance, not about what martials should be.

Further there are many ways to balance the game and the most easily achievable would be accomplished without touching classes at all.

I think there are other posts discussing the imbalance between classes and those threads are a more appropriate place to discuss changes focused on balancing fighters.

Finally if we are really talking about balance I think there is a strong argument that fighters need to be nerfed down to where Monks are. Why is the default position that fighters need to be made more powerful when they are already a lot more powerful than non-caster classes? The argument for Figthter-Wizard is no different than Monk-Fighter.

 

[ECMO3]

For example,in the real world and modern fiction has the concept of the sniper well sniping an important individual and their bodyguards.

In general I think that is more of the Rogue thing thematically. That said an Arcane Archer has a supernatural ability that do this sort of thing with their various Arcane Shots.

A swordsman could slash at a giant's ankles and have it hobbling for the remainder of the encounter.

The Slasher feat already does exactly this (along with other things) and it is spammable with no resource cost. The only limit is one creature per turn and of course you have to hit that creature.

Further, many things similar to both of these examples this are already covered by the Superior Technique fighting style, Martial Adept and Fighting Initiate feats and the entire Battlemaster subclass. With this being available in the fighting styles they are available to any fighter even if the battlemaster does not suit you.

This underpins my argument from earlier - subclasses are the places to put these things. As well as feats etc. Then you can take them if you want.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Either way is fine. The question is; are you willing to deal with the effects of your decision??

 

[Minigiant]

In general I think that is more of the Rogue thing thematically. That said an Arcane Archer has a supernatural ability that do this with their various Arcane Shots.

The fighter is the master of weapons and sniping is mastery of weapon use.

Saying pick the Supernatural subclass to do something mundane is the whole problem.

The Slasher feat already does exactly this (along with other things) and it is spammable with no resource cost. The only limit is one creature per turn and of course you have to hit that creature.

Further, many things similar to both of these examples this are already covered by the Superior Technique fighting style, martial Adept and Fighting Initiate feats and the entire Battlemaster subclass. With this being available in the fighting styles they are available to any fighter even if the battlemaster subclsss does not suit you.

This underpins my argument from earlier - subclasses are the places to put these things. As well as feats etc. Then you can take them if you want.

Slasher only lasts a turn and is only aloud once turn.
Nor does the Battlemaster support that action.

Which is the problem again.

D&D supports martials skill in the weakest form it can get away with.

Martials should be mundane in the definition of Mundane meaning "Not Supernatural"
Martials don't also have to be mundane in the definition meaning "Dull".

Like you said, subclasses and feats are places where these things could be placed.

But where are they? Little from WOTC. Little from most 3PPs.
All they offer is magic and supernatural.

Has a 3PP printed a good sniping/decapitation rule? A good called shot system? A good "cleaves through swaths of mooks" subclass?

Or is it always "take a feat/subclass to tap into the power of the Arcane/Divine/Primal/Darkness/Death/Dragonmagics/Runes/Fiends/Fey/Yokai/Etc"

 

[Maxperson]

d6 per 10 feet fallen does not correspond to how it works on earth.

Nor is it another law of physics. You would need to come up with a real law and all it's computations before that happened. Otherwise it fits as an approximation of the real world law as it was intended to way back when.

1e DMG page 21 when talking about the game being humanocentric: "By having a basis to work from, and a well-developed body of work to draw upon, at least part of this task is handled for us. When history, folklore, myth, fable and fiction can be incorporated or used as reference for the campaign, the magnitude of the effort required is reduced by several degrees. Even actual sciences can be used - geography, chemistry, physics, and so forth."

1e DMG page 32 sages fields of study:

"Physical Universe(s) 61-70
Architecture & Engineering
Astronomy
Chemistry
Geography
Geology & Mineralogy
Mathematics
Meteorology & Climatology
Oceanography
Physics
Topography & Cartography"

Gygax intended the real world to be the basis to work from in his approximations. 1e Dragon Magazine did have an article for computing terminal velocity for those who wanted more accuracy, though.

You need to show that things have explicitly changed away from being based on real world sciences and have their own fantasy sciences. Do you have any explicit quotes showing that?

 

[Maxperson]

So falling 10 feet is worse than getting stabbed with a dagger, when IRL someone in their 20s is probably not going to be significantly injured at all from such a fall. On the other hand 90 feet is going to kill you, where high level characters will universally survive that.

None of that matters. Gygax created the system as a loose approximation of real world physics, not as a close model of it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The fighter is the master of weapons and sniping is mastery of weapon use.

No, sniping is blatantly obviously a form of sneak attack. And yes, one could argue that sneak attack is a type of weapon mastery, but if you give that to the fighters, then you might as well get rid of the rogues.