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

[Vaalingrade]

I'm on record as considering the 3e fighter the best-designed class, elegant in it's simplicity, yet having customizeability and depth.

Not with you there.

The only class feature being the get what everyone else does a big faster, a skill point allotment that should not have existed in the game, a master at arms that doesn't get free access to the exotic weapons... 3e fighter was a showcase for the new gimmick of 3e, but not a functional test bed.

The Rogue was just nearly random class features, by comparison.

Mobile light fighter that is also The Smart Guy, featuring the only reasonable skill allotment and feats that actually work with it before Song and Silence allowed it to reach its ultimate, life-ruining form that just made opponents suffer.

Eventually the bard would challenge it for best design, after Song and Silence and Complete Scoundrel and Complete Arcane, but only for the like five people that knew what it actually did and nothing can ever forgive Countersong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would not hold up 3e rogues as an example of game design working.

They were designed to be equal in combat to everybody else but their sneak attack working on only about half the opponents or situations, midling BAB, and legacy low hp did not allow them to actually be equal to other 3e classes in combat.

Far superior to prior edition non-spellcasting MUs with leather armor short sword and short bow thieves, but the class would still have to wait until 4e to actually achieve their actual execution on that combat parity design goal.

Thieves didn't have that design goal in the TSR editions. The rogue is a different class.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I think in a fantasy world it is fine to say that mighty martial combatants have semi-mystical "warrior spirit" or somesuch which they can cultivate to surpass the real life mortals.

But again, no one says that except in 4e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's just one of those things. I was tempted switch to PF at one point in the hopes that they had fixed the linear fighter exponential wizard issue 3E had but after chatting with people realized they had just doubled down on build complexity.

PF1 had some good ideas, like CMB/D which fixed the tumbling silliness you mentioned above. I say 'like,' but I can't immediately recall a second example, it was a long time ago a friend tried to sell me on it, and that was the bit that stuck.

Thieves didn't have that design goal in the TSR editions.

Design goals were kinda mysterious back in the day. EGG didn't design the Thief, apparently wargaming enthusiasts trying out D&D did - today we'd say it was homebrew. Of course, he may have changed it extensively....

...and it really was pretty sad, better attack matrix than the MU, worst save progression, d6 HD, leather armor ... it got to use Longswords and some other fighter-leaning items... 'special abilities' that weren't... and the fastest exp progression in a game with individual exp awards....

Was it meant to advance faster than other classes? Earn less xp but still keep up?

And what was it with most races being unlimited advancement only in Thief, was that punishment for not being human?

But again, no one says that except in 4e.

In every editions, hp alone cause every class to surpass real life mortals.

 

[Garthanos]

Expression of strength in D&D is pretty FUBAR because of how it adds to damage. However, if you simply look at how much they could lift? Not sure what a "great" dragon is but an ancient red dragon has a 30 strength and is gargantuan. Since carrying capacity is 30 X strength score doubling for every category above medium, that dragon can list 7,200 pounds, 3.6 tons. That fighter with a 20 strength? 600 pounds.

Burst capacity would be determined by an athletics skill or ability check vs a DC not by carrying capacity *but yes you can call it fubar and I wont exactly refute that LOL.

 

[Garthanos]

Thieves didn't have that design goal in the TSR editions. The rogue is a different class.

the 1e thief was so lame it was trivial to find less dangerous ways to accomplish its forte ... the rogue replacing it was a good thing in my opinion. We had a yellow notebook with boring as hell procedures a number of which were how do we not let the theif do his tricks. It was about being skilled players in Gygax world you know.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We had a yellow notebook with boring as hell procedures

Wait, this was before ISO 9000?

 

[Micah Sweet]

PF1 had some good ideas, like CMB/D which fixed the tumbling silliness you mentioned above. I say 'like,' but I can't immediately recall a second example, it was a long time ago a friend tried to sell me on it, and that was the bit that stuck.

Design goals were kinda mysterious back in the day. EGG didn't design the Thief, apparently wargaming enthusiasts trying out D&D did - today we'd say it was homebrew. Of course, he may have changed it extensively....

...and it really was pretty sad, better attack matrix than the MU, worst save progression, d6 HD, leather armor ... it got to use Longswords and some other fighter-leaning items... 'special abilities' that weren't... and the fastest exp progression in a game with individual exp awards....

Was it meant to advance faster than other classes? Earn less xp but still keep up?

And what was it with most races being unlimited advancement only in Thief, was that punishment for not being human?

In every editions, hp alone cause every class to surpass real life mortals.

Give me an example that isn't hit points. Please. I'm so tired of "but hit points!" being trotted out every time any desire or argument for realism/verisimilitude gets proffered.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There's
3) die?

Spoiler: the eternal exception

View attachment 310297

Also they’re definitely snipers in 5e as well, and in 4e there are also rogue feats for sniping and I think at least a couple paragon paths.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Also they’re definitely snipers in 5e as well,

SS/CBE... nod... Assassin.... yep, checks out. Maybe not the word 'sniper,' which was the sum & total of my joke, but, you are correct, sir.

and in 4e there are also rogue feats for sniping and I think at least a couple paragon paths.

There are, yes, some even had the word sniper, but only one had 'sniper' in the name and 'rogue' in the preqs, and it also required elf, so I went with the exploit. Other classes could snipe... and of course, players will always snipe....
Oh, Ranger also had a sniper PP, that popped up on my search...