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

[Minigiant]

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.

Rogues haves superior skills use plus agility class features and soon Cunning Strikes.

Why can't fighters or other martial classes get sneak attack?

Rogue can get maneuvers and spells via feats and subclasses.

Seems like the martials are being held back, like I said, due to limited view of martial archetypes

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why can't fighters or other martial classes get sneak attack?

Because it is the defining feature of the rogues. Class based system needs to entail some niche protection.

 

[Minigiant]

Because it is the defining feature of the rogues. Class based system needs to entail some niche protection.

Why is Sneak Attack class defining?

It always wasnt. Skills was. Could not Superior Skill be their defining feature and have skills opening up foes for sneak attack be that representation?

Where Fighter get high damage assassination strikes.

Or maybe fighters could get a Save or Die on significantly compromised targets.

Seems like D&D choose simplicity over archetype replication.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why is Sneak Attack class defining?

It is the combat power of a sneaky class. Rogues are the sneaky class, the fighters aren't.

It always wasnt. Skills was. Could not Superior Skill be their defining feature and have skills opening up foes for sneak attack be that representation?

A lot of people have wanted fighters to be more competent outside of combat. That the rogues are "the skill class" is one reason why that has not happened. So focusing on that aspect of rogues even more would be counterproductive. Give fighters better skill capabilities instead.

Where Fighter get high damage assassination strikes.

Or maybe fighters could get a Save or Die on significantly compromised targets.

Seems like D&D choose simplicity over archetype replication.

This is how hit points work. But yes, I wouldn't mind if fighters had 4e style mighty attack that they could use instead of their multiattack, to deal a lot of damage to a single foe.

 

[Minigiant]

A lot of people have wanted fighters to be more competent outside of combat. That the rogues are "the skill class" is one reason why that has not happened. So focusing on that aspect of rogues even more would be counterproductive. Give fighters better skill capabilities instead

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

The rogue can be the master of skills while the fighter could focus on an aspect of skills the same way the fighter is the master of weapons while the rogue focuses on one aspect of weapons.

I don't know if it is "I can't think of a solution so it can't be done" or "I don't like the consequences of the solution".

However it kinda feels hypocritical or just conflicting that "It can't be done" but also tell everyone"Your DM can easily fix it".

I kinda all feels like the big hold up are that some people don't like the idea of adding new classes with more forced features and some people don't think martials should get more that one class feature at an
t level up.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Then this thread has been a waste of everyone's time and 5e is fine as is.

Because I keep getting told fighters fall behind casters who can do these types of things. A fighter needs magical items to stay competitive. A fighter has nothing to do outside of combat. A fighter lacks the plot coupons a wizard gets. If you're saying a fighter doesn't need those (and indeed, doesn't want them) then the issue is settled and we can move on.

 

[Remathilis]

Rogues haves superior skills use plus agility class features and soon Cunning Strikes.

Why can't fighters or other martial classes get sneak attack?

Rogue can get maneuvers and spells via feats and subclasses.

Seems like the martials are being held back, like I said, due to limited view of martial archetypes

Why can't fighters and other martial classes get rage?

 

[Remathilis]

Why is Sneak Attack class defining?

It always wasnt. Skills was. Could not Superior Skill be their defining feature and have skills opening up foes for sneak attack be that representation?

If you're going down that road, you better get rid of every other avenue to expertise other than the rogue class. Not bard, not ranger, not wizard, not feats or species traits. Rogue doubles skill proficiency and NO one else.

 

[Minigiant]

Why can't fighters and other martial classes get rage?

I don't know.

Rage should be a feat.
Scaling rage should be Barbarian only.

If you're going down that road, you better get rid of every other avenue to expertise other than the rogue class. Not bard, not ranger, not wizard, not feats or species traits. Rogue doubles skill proficiency and NO one else.

Again limitations on design.

Everyone should get Expertise in one skill or tool.
Rogues should get 2 more Expertise and 1st level, 2 more later. Plus reliable talent.

I mean it's not hard

 

[Remathilis]

I don't know.

Rage should be a feat.
Scaling rage should be Barbarian only.

Again limitations on design.

Everyone should get Expertise in one skill or tool.
Rogues should get 2 more Expertise and 1st level, 2 more later. Plus reliable talent.

I mean it's not hard

Right. Remove barbarian and rogue and make them feats.