D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[Crimson Longinus]

Bolded for emphasis. That line specifically is a huge issue I have with 5E D&D. At first when I played Pathfinder 2E I didn't see the point of Skill Feats, but the more I played it the more I understand that they are quite important because they allow characters to get really good at something in a way that actually feels like it makes a difference.

It's a big problem to me that many skills are basically useless or just plain badly defined. Even the best skills are actually quite "meh".

It is because there are no proper guidance of what skills should achieve and what DCs should be. So it is just basically the GM making up the DC and the outcome. A good GM can be consistent with this so that it effectively proxies as a framework, but the game should not rely on that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I wonder if you could implement a system like the Weapon Mastery system. Call it Skill Focus.

Give certain classes Skill Focus at level 5 or so, letting them pick a number of skills. Then in the skill section, have different abilities that are unlocked by a combo of skill focus, level/proficiency, and expertise.

That way you aren't giving it to every class, you can level gate without bloating the class itself, and you can add skill powers that cover a wide range of abilities.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For an egregious example of what is wrong, look to the Medicine Skill. Medicine... is worthless. You cannot use medicine to heal people. You cannot use medicine to cure disease or poison. The best use for medicine in terms of actually dealing with injuries is to stabilize a dying creature... which the 10 gp healer's kit let's you do regardless of skill prof. Even doing things like looking at a corpse to see what killed them is something you can also do with an investigation skill.

I think skills are barking up the wrong tree. Skills in D&D aren't really load-bearing weights for defining archetypal abilities, they're a specialized group of ability checks, and I don't think they need to be inflated in importance. We have a method for defining archetypal abilities, and that is class features.

So Medicine not being super great doesn't show me what's wrong (aside from showing me that the skill system isn't great, and that's a newsflash from 2001 or so).

What shows me what's wrong is that we have a huge diversity of warriors who are also good healers. War clerics, devotion paladins, sword bards, alchemist artificers....but because the word "fighter" isn't in them, because their flavor is magical, so many people looking to be healer/warriors overlook them as options.

And it could be relatively trivial to fix. A fighting style that includes an effect that lets your allies burn healing surges in combat wouldn't even be controversial, I think. Bingus bangus battlemaster, you're 80% of the warlord without a spell slot in sight.

BUT ALSO, if we we just WENT FOR IT, we could have a fighter who just is an Eldritch Knight but for a spell list full of spells to heal and buff the party, and we don't need to make excuses. I'm a warrior in magical world, healing wounds is something a lot of creatures are capable of, why can't I just LEARN MAGIC? Why can't I just take a fighting style that lets me cast healing word a few times per day or 1/short rest or something? Seems to me just a cultural bias against giving fighters magic. Like the OP, I think that "exclusively martial" bias in the game is a little limiting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think skills are barking up the wrong tree. Skills in D&D aren't really load-bearing weights for defining archetypal abilities, they're a specialized group of ability checks, and I don't think they need to be inflated in importance. We have a method for defining archetypal abilities, and that is class features.

So Medicine not being super great doesn't show me what's wrong (aside from showing me that the skill system isn't great, and that's a newsflash from 2001 or so).

What shows me what's wrong is that we have a huge diversity of warriors who are also good healers. War clerics, devotion paladins, sword bards, alchemist artificers....but because the word "fighter" isn't in them, because their flavor is magical, so many people looking to be healer/warriors overlook them as options.

And it could be relatively trivial to fix. A fighting style that includes an effect that lets your allies burn healing surges in combat wouldn't even be controversial, I think. Bingus bangus battlemaster, you're 80% of the warlord without a spell slot in sight.

BUT ALSO, if we we just WENT FOR IT, we could have a fighter who just is an Eldritch Knight but for a spell list full of spells to heal and buff the party, and we don't need to make excuses. I'm a warrior in magical world, healing wounds is something a lot of creatures are capable of, why can't I just LEARN MAGIC? Why can't I just take a fighting style that lets me cast healing word a few times per day or 1/short rest or something? Seems to me just a cultural bias against giving fighters magic. Like the OP, I think that "exclusively martial" bias in the game is a little limiting.

Well, I know it isn't a newsflash, but it is a problem that needs addressed. And I think it is a mistake to dismiss the skill system so suddenly.

For example, you create a fighting style that allows for healing, no archer is going to take. It competes with the protection style, or with the dueling style. And the reasoning for a player to take medicine is to be good at healing themselves (according to every new player I've seen take it).

Additionally, a fighting style would be great.. but doesn't do anything for the Rogue. And if I want to have bonuses to other things generally covered under the skill system, I would need a fighting style for each of them, and a new ability for the rogue, and that creates a good deal of bloat in the class.

This is actually why I was looking for something other than class features. Because adding a dozen new class features to fighter and rogue is a lot, but if we made a better version of the skill system, we can add twenty or so abilities, without actually overwhelming the players as much.
Hey, you want medicine? Great
Oh, you happen to be a fighter with medicine prof at level 5, now you can roll a DC 12 check and spend a use of a healer's kit to heal an ally 1d4+medicine modifier as an action.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Well... sort of, but not really.

I would say it is campaign dependent in so far that, the campaign determines when things end. It is easiest to see this with spellcasters, but if you are playing the 4 musketeers, and your greatest foes are thugs and criminal street toughs... well if you play to level 7 your wizard can get Greater Invisibility. Unless the DM specifically steps in and prevents that.

And if you play to the level where your wizard can level small towns, turn invisible, summon servitors and make clones of themselves... well, it might feel weird when your DM pulls out the big boss fight with the CR 4 thug-boss.

The issue is that DnD is a progression-fantasy, but created before that genre had a name. Fighters cannot just be the 4 musketeers, and they cannot be just Heracles, God of Strength. Fighters need to start at the low end, and move up to the high end. Just like the spellcasters start weaker and move to stronger and stronger abilities. Because, the opponents do the same thing. You don't start by fighting goons, then fighting a mob boss who is just a more skilled goon. You start by fighting rats and end by fighting demi-gods of destruction.

The only way to make it campaign dependent is to, eventually, stop gaining official levels and held the power scaling steady.

I agree in general. Hell, also in the specifics.

Disclaimer: I'm not a DnD guy. Haven't played it since 3rd ed. What I know of 5e comes mostly from playing Baldur's Gate 3.

I think there's more than enough space in DnD to justify things like:

Genre books that set out things like level limits and curated class and spell lists to help create a genre's vibe. GMing advice too. This way you don't get improved invisibility in your 4 Musketeers, gritty, low magic, cloak and dagger game.

Actual skill descriptions. Possibly giving genre appropriate options. (PS: I like the example @Chaosmancer gave for medicine skill, above.)

More feats, again with a lot of genre options, to allow for tailoring characters. Also, feats every level. (Personally, I dislike class systems and think that basing character options on sub-classes is a bad idea. Either, you get more silo-ing off of abilities making characters even more limited, or you break down sub-classes to the point where you've got a pile of class features that are effectively just feats.)

Advancement options that aren't about a character's personal abilities. Things like wealth, contacts & friends, social rank (that have actual has effect on game play.)

Yet another disclaimer: I know what I am suggesting sounds like the genre books one gets from universal systems like GURPS and Hero. This is intended. But if folks are going to go around using DnD as a universal system it really does beg for this sort of treatment.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean, you can. D&D's current martial model includes that possibility space (and peppers in dragons and demigods that you can headshot or whatever). The most skilled traumatized orphan in the world can be all sorts of Batman and doesn't even need to wait 'till 17th level because even at 5th level they're more skilled and deadly than 99% of the people on earth.

But it can be very limiting for martial characters. "Hit things good" sometimes feels like it's ALL a Fighter can do (and rogues have a similar "get big skill check" pigeonhole) And in a game that includes elements other than combat, it's often not enough.

So bring to me the tacticians that create illusions, the leaders that heal wounds with their voices, the rogues that use shadow magic, the warriors blessed by the gods. I mean, sure, keep the Champion and the Thief and your high skill check results and big damage nukes, if you'd like. It works, it's fine. But let's not assume that it's all a Fighter or a Rogue can be, because if we do that, we say things like the first quote above: that Fighter's can't speak with the dead or see the future (both things that Aeneas did, if I'm remembering right!). There's no in-genre reason for that to be the case.

Official D&D seems to be able to dip a toe into this (there's some supernatural fighters and rogues out there), but it seems hesitant, perhaps because earlier editions were hesitant. I'm with the OP in that I think there's a lot of untapped potential if you remove the assumption that "hit things good" is all a Fighter can be and that "be good at skill checks and sneak attack" is all a Rogue can be.

I'm just saying that it would be cool to explore more options of high level warriors and experts that don't go into magic.

For example what if there was an archer subclass that crafted special nonmagical arrows
Serrated arrowheads for bleeds
Hollow arrows with poison
Blunt arrows that knockback
Sort of like the Arcane Archer but with more subtle arrows and thus more special shots shots per day.
Only they can uses these arrows because they practiced with their weight and how they fly. Their skill wih tinkering helps them disarm traps and open locks.

Or a Warrior Surgeon. Skilled at blades and can perform surgeries after battle with some cloth and a healer's kit. Stay at max HP and heal injury at the cost of time instead of spell points.

But WOTC and most 3PPs have gone down the same "make everyone a spellcaster or psuedo caster" route. Sigh.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm just saying that it would be cool to explore more options of high level warriors and experts that don't go into magic.

For example what if there was an archer subclass that crafted special nonmagical arrows
Serrated arrowheads for bleeds
Hollow arrows with poison
Blunt arrows that knockback
Sort of like the Arcane Archer but with more subtle arrows and thus more special shots shots per day.
Only they can uses these arrows because they practiced with their weight and how they fly. Their skill wih tinkering helps them disarm traps and open locks.

But, if you are talking subclasses.... how would this play differently than an (Fixed) Arcane Archer with thieves tools? I specify fixed because "using more special shots per day" is the single biggest request for the Arcane Archer.

I will tell you immediately, if I was looking at two archer subclasses, and the major difference was that one had different effects, could use thieve's tools, and had more uses of their special effects... I'd just transfer the missing effects from the other subclass and boot the one that is now empty. Subclasses need to be fairly distinct in their differences.

Or a Warrior Surgeon. Skilled at blades and can perform surgeries after battle with some cloth and a healer's kit. Stay at max HP and heal injury at the cost of time instead of spell points.

Why should this be limited to a subclass? Also, I would be careful about how much "time" you end up using. I feel like it should be under a minute for each person otherwise it won't get used.

But WOTC and most 3PPs have gone down the same "make everyone a spellcaster or psuedo caster" route. Sigh.

I mean, in a way, that is because the subclass space isn't great for designing mundane things you can do. Even something "non-magical" like the cavaliers mark, is designed similarly to magical abilities, because you need to limit the number of uses per day. And there are just a lot more unique and quickly establishiable fantastical concepts than there are non-fantastical concepts. So, design pressures make sense for this.

 

[Minigiant]

But, if you are talking subclasses.... how would this play differently than an (Fixed) Arcane Archer with thieves tools? I specify fixed because "using more special shots per day" is the single biggest request for the Arcane Archer.

I will tell you immediately, if I was looking at two archer subclasses, and the major difference was that one had different effects, could use thieve's tools, and had more uses of their special effects... I'd just transfer the missing effects from the other subclass and boot the one that is now empty. Subclasses need to be fairly distinct in their differences.



Why should this be limited to a subclass? Also, I would be careful about how much "time" you end up using. I feel like it should be under a minute for each person otherwise it won't get used.



I mean, in a way, that is because the subclass space isn't great for designing mundane things you can do. Even something "non-magical" like the cavaliers mark, is designed similarly to magical abilities, because you need to limit the number of uses per day. And there are just a lot more unique and quickly establishiable fantastical concepts than there are non-fantastical concepts. So, design pressures make sense for this.

You talking to the wrong guy.

Minigiant wants to add at least 10 more classes to 5e.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm just saying that it would be cool to explore more options of high level warriors and experts that don't go into magic.

For example what if there was an archer subclass that crafted special nonmagical arrows
Serrated arrowheads for bleeds
Hollow arrows with poison
Blunt arrows that knockback
Sort of like the Arcane Archer but with more subtle arrows and thus more special shots shots per day.
Only they can uses these arrows because they practiced with their weight and how they fly. Their skill wih tinkering helps them disarm traps and open locks.

Or a Warrior Surgeon. Skilled at blades and can perform surgeries after battle with some cloth and a healer's kit. Stay at max HP and heal injury at the cost of time instead of spell points.

But WOTC and most 3PPs have gone down the same "make everyone a spellcaster or psuedo caster" route. Sigh.

I'm generally on board with the idea that we could add some subclasses for things like this. There's parallels that get close to these ideas, but sometimes it's just nice noting it on your character sheet and making it your schtick and that's all well and good.

But, I don't think the Fighter or Rogue need to be limited to subclasses like this. Which I think is a little in line with where the OP was going - that martial characters can be magical, too.

And judging by the current Fighter subclass distribution, we have four "martial magicals" (arcane archer, eldritch knight, psi warrior, rune knight) and five "nonmagical martials" (battle master, cavalier, champion, banneret, samurai). So at least speaking officially, the idea that WotC is not on board with either of these camps probably says more about the viewer's biases than it does about WotC's own priorities.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm generally on board with the idea that we could add some subclasses for things like this. There's parallels that get close to these ideas, but sometimes it's just nice noting it on your character sheet and making it your schtick and that's all well and good.

But, I don't think the Fighter or Rogue need to be limited to subclasses like this. Which I think is a little in line with where the OP was going - that martial characters can be magical, too.

And judging by the current Fighter subclass distribution, we have four "martial magicals" (arcane archer, eldritch knight, psi warrior, rune knight) and five "nonmagical martials" (battle master, cavalier, champion, banneret, samurai). So at least speaking officially, the idea that WotC is not on board with either of these camps probably says more about the viewer's biases than it does about WotC's own priorities.

Oh I am more a fan of more classes.

I think if D&D had 2 more additional nonmagical martial classes in addition to the Fighter and Rogue, there could be more space for a pushing harder into the directions of msrtialdom.

Like if you added a Warrior for more mental warrior with resources tied to brainpower and a Duelist/Swashbuckler/Scoundrel to be that core Dextrous/Charming Warrior, you'd have more space to lean harder with big core clas mechanics to other archetypes.

You could spend all your Brainpower to learn a fact or figure out a secret or perform miraculous surgeries or counter a monster feature

You could build up your charm to confound a foe and fantasize a friend.