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

[Alzrius]

Smokepowder in Ferun is supernatural, becuase it is specifically magic, While on another world gunpower, which does the exact same thing functionally, is not supernatural.

Glad to see that I'm not the only one who remembers this difference between smokepowder and gunpowder.

While there's very little functional difference between the two, it's interesting to note that smokepowder doesn't work on Oerth (i.e. the World of Greyhawk, though it works in the rest of the Greyspace crystal sphere), whereas gunpowder does. However, high-level priests of Murlynd have (as per Slavers; affiliate link) the ability to use smokepowder on Oerth. Additionally, Dragon #306 (in the "Paladins of Greyhawk" article) confirms that his priesthood also is able to create and use gunpowder as well.

 

[Minigiant]

Right. Remove barbarian and rogue and make them feats.

It's almost you are not reading what I wrote

Make the basics a feat.

Make advancement a class. Just like magic.

 

[Remathilis]

Glad to see that I'm not the only one who remembers this difference between smokepowder and gunpowder.

While there's very little functional difference between the two, it's interesting to note that smokepowder doesn't work on Oerth (i.e. the World of Greyhawk, though it works in the rest of the Greyspace crystal sphere), whereas gunpowder does. However, high-level priests of Murlynd have (as per Slavers; affiliate link) the ability to use smokepowder on Oerth. Additionally, Dragon #306 (in the "Paladins of Greyhawk" article) confirms that his priesthood also is able to create and use gunpowder as well.

The smoke powder/gunpowder divide has always been about splitting hairs for me. It's the equivalent of having cars in D&D, but some run on diesel and others on regular gas and it's very important what world you're in since that determines if you can use the gas station or not. In the end, they're both cars in D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean it's not hard

It actually is hard. Designing games is not easy, and there are plenty of good reasons why the ideas like yours are not implemented. I have issues with some 5e design choices, but reading forum suggestions certainly makes the official rules look good in comparison.

 

[NotAYakk]

As implemented currently, my answer would be "neither." Hard fail in both cases.

Yeah, I imagine that trying to run a game as exposition heavy as LotR would be an uphill battle.... definitely in the bailiwick of some DMs though, just gotta love lore & wourldbuilding.


I suppose the idea is to open up some design space or leeway to do something other than lean into full attacks every round?
The 5e fighter chassis, for instance, is dominated by Extra Attack to keep it's damage potential high enough to statistically compete with caster damage potential over ~30+ round 'day,' something that arguably also requires heavy investment in STR or DEX and Feats ('optional' in 5e.2014), and, preferably, a reasonably potent magic weapon ('not assumed' in 5e).
If the fighter design were more open and flexible, able to do sufficient damage in combat, while also having options open to do high damage or other contributions in-combat, and participate more meaningfully out of combat it'd be a better balanced design. Heck, if it could do that, it'd be better than every prior fighter design, even the elegant, but Tier 5, 3.5 Fighter or the solid defender, AEDU resource-parity, 4e Fighter.

One thing I've started to play with is adding complexity to fighting class in-combat options.

As an example, at level 5, the fighter gets to perform a free shove or grapple on each target they melee attack on their turn. Just once per target. (Also, "grapple" on 2 size or more larger targets doesn't stop the enemy from moving, it just makes the PC move along with the target; it is otherwise mechanically identical).

Adding more of that without consuming damage output really makes combat more dynamic for a fighting character. Foes fall down, fly around, get pinned, etc. It also makes a free hand mechanically stronger.

...

Ranger: Get disruptive strike. Reaction attack to a creature being hit; you attack first. If your attack hits, triggering attack must reroll with disadvantage. (This was one of my favorite abilities in 4e for Rangers, and helps make combat dynamic)

Rogue: Get ways to spend sneak attack dice. A flurry, where dice become extra attacks. Also, ways to increasingly reliably trigger reaction (off-turn) sneak attacks from level 5 up to 11+.

Paladin: Already pretty fun with smite. Add features that give free-smite-after-spellcasting (to encourage combat spellcasting), and class features that make divine smite and lay on hands do more at higher levels. (LOH ideas: heal both yourself and target, add 1 turn of temporary HP) (Smite ideas: Increase from 1d8+[Slot]d8 to 2d8 etc at higher levels. Restrict Smite to 1/turn unless you score a crit. When you cast a level X paladin spell, your next hit (before the end of your next turn) gets a level X smite on it.)

Barbarian: Replace rage damage bonus with a rage die. Lean in on crit mechanics (give extended crit range for example). Have stuff happen when you crit that isn't just more damage.

Monk: All Ki bonus actions include 1 unarmed attack. This allows spending Ki on non-flurry to be more tempting. Stunning Blow stops eating Ki, and becomes "first hit on a creature" on your turn for free (!), plus whenever you crit. Ways to burn Ki faster unlock (outside of subclasses), ideally that are not just pure damage but don't eat into your damage output. Level 11 includes a significant damage boost in the base class.

 

[Maxperson]

It actually is hard. Designing games is not easy, and there are plenty of good reasons why the ideas like yours are not implemented. I have issues with some 5e design choices, but reading forum suggestions certainly makes the official rules look good in comparison.

I don't know. WotC presumably has the behind the scenes numbers. They make feats that give cantrips and even some first level spells. It shouldn't be all that hard for them to come up with a feat that has some amount of sneak attack or rage that roughly equals those feats.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know. WotC presumably has the behind the scenes numbers. They make feats that give cantrips and even some first level spells. It shouldn't be all that hard for them to come up with a feat that has some amount of sneak attack or rage that roughly equals those feats.

Agreed. To me it's a matter of will, not difficulty.

 

[Minigiant]

It actually is hard. Designing games is not easy, and there are plenty of good reasons why the ideas like yours are not implemented. I have issues with some 5e design choices, but reading forum suggestions certainly makes the official rules look good in comparison.

The adjustments literally aren't hard.

The issue is that some fans just don't want some stuff.

There is a difference between "I don't like it" and "It can't be done easily"

A lot of PHB 2024 is doing simple stuff the hard way because WOTC wants to limit additions.

But giving everyone a free level one feat that grants Expertise or Cantrips is just the same thing the hard way.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why is Sneak Attack class defining?

Before I begin, I want to reiterate my position that niche protection is bad for the game.

That said, Rogue get SA because that's their damage source. Fighters get some version of power attack plus a higher BaB/more attacks, or weren't meant to be highest damage at all that one time they had a defined purpose. Despite popular belief, the fighter is the Sword and Board and THF fighter while the rogue is th elight mobile fighter who doesn't get big damage adders outside of sneak attack. That's why it's trivial to proc.

Giving fighters sneak attack is putting a hat on a hat: they already got their damage source, this would just be giving them another.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The adjustments literally aren't hard.
The issue is that some fans just don't want some stuff.

There's "don't want, won't use" and there's "don't want, can't let anyone else have it either"

It's sad that the latter has somehow become such an important consideration in designing for D&D