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

[Tony Vargas]

That doesn't count. 4e had to name a zillion powers. And Fighters couldn't shoot bows in 4e.

You specifically said Rogue. And it's not like the exploit was misnamed.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There is more to nonmagical combat than.

1) Attack a lot
2) Deal a lot of damage while you have advantage

Yeah, if you're a Battlemaster. Otherwise... no, that's all there is to it. They even took away the feat that let you deal more damage with a big weapon.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, if you're a Battlemaster. Otherwise... no, that's all there is to it. They even took away the feat that let you deal more damage with a big weapon.

That's the crazy part.

The problem wasn't that GWM and SS deal big damage. It was the TWF, Unarmed Strikes, Sword and Board, and Finesse fighting didn't have damage feats as well. And sucked.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, just like sneak attack!

Seriously, you're trying to create duplicate mechanic for a thing the game already has a mechanic for and in the process destroy a combat niche of one class. This is terrible design.

3e worked just fine without such protections. The rogue was still a rogue and fun to play, even with several prestige classes and the scout ability in the game. Nothing is destroyed. It's not bad design.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's the crazy part.

The problem wasn't that GWM and SS deal big damage. It was the TWF, Unarmed Strikes, Sword and Board, and Finesse fighting didn't have damage feats as well. And sucked.

That'd be because historically, D&D doesn't want to incentivize you to invade other classes's niches for good or for ill.

TWF is supposed to be a Ranger thing even it it's actually the rogue's. Unarmed Strikes are FOR MONKS ONLY DO NOT TRY, Sword and Board is supposedly for Paladin, but it's not really supported for anyone, even the Paladin who you would think would be a shoo-in, and Finesse fighting is for the rogue.

D&D sees you try doing one of these as a fighter--in every edition even 4e except for sword and board and later TWF--and says 'why are you doing that? You're not playing right! I'm gonna tell mom!' and then holds its breath until it passes out, hits its head on the end table, and ends up babbling out ten more spells and class features for casters.

 

[Maxperson]

That doesn't count. 4e had to name a zillion powers. And Fighters couldn't shoot bows in 4e.

By that logic Fighter are magic as the were Giants and rocs and griffons.

4e fighters were magic per RAW on page 54 of the PHB.

"Martial: Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals."

Not magic in the traditional sense = magic in an untraditional sense.

 

[Scribe]

4e fighters were magic per RAW on page 54 of the PHB.

"Martial: Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals."

Not magic in the traditional sense = magic in an untraditional sense.

This isn't surprising. I've long suspected that the 4e folks are really just looking for Magic without calling it out.

 

[Voadam]

3e worked just fine without such protections. The rogue was still a rogue and fun to play, even with several prestige classes and the scout ability in the game. Nothing is destroyed. It's not bad design.

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.

 

[Voadam]

4e fighters were magic per RAW on page 54 of the PHB.

"Martial: Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals."

Not magic in the traditional sense = magic in an untraditional sense.

That seems to be an error of interpretation on your part.

Olympic level weightlifting and fencing ability is well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals. Elite martial PCs are not ordinary mortals. That does not necessarily mean they are immortals. They can be extraordinary mortals.

4e does not exclude considering martials as magical, but as far as I know it does not say they are magical.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Rogues aren't really about combat to me and in 3e they were one of my favorite classes. Skills. They did skills like nobodies business.

That also wasn't my point. My point was that sharing PHB class abilities with other classes and prestige classes didn't detract from the PHB class. Nothing was destroyed and it wasn't bad design.