17
\$\begingroup\$

What are martial classes in the context of 5e? Is there a consensus on what the terminology means?

Are martial classes something that you have to specify to make yourself understood?

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Oct 5, 2021 at 22:15

6 Answers 6

26
\$\begingroup\$

Within the rules and various race, class, and feature descriptions, "martial" seems to generally refer to non-magical combat techniques.

After reviewing the ways the rules texts use the word "martial", I have come to the conclusion that it loosely refers to non-magical combat techniques. We often see the word "martial" used as an antithesis to "arcane" or "magical". For example, in the Fighter class description:

Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic.

And more specifically, in the Eldritch Knight martial archetype description:

The archetypal Eldritch Knight combines the martial mastery common to all fighters with a careful study of magic.

Similarly, in the Hobgoblin race description, we see:

When hobgoblins aren’t waging war, they farm, they build, and they practice both martial and arcane arts.

In the Rune Knight martial archetype description, we see:

Rune Knights enhance their martial prowess using the supernatural power of runes, an ancient practice that originated with giants.

In the elf race description, we see:

Elves also enjoy exercising their martial prowess or gaining greater magical power, and adventuring allows them to do so.

And in the Paladin class description:

Paladins train for years to learn the skills of combat, mastering a variety of weapons and armor. Even so, their martial skills are secondary to the magical power they wield: power to heal the sick and injured, to smite the wicked and the undead, and to protect the innocent and those who join them in the fight for justice.

And in the lore description of the Echo Knight martial archetype:

A rare few characters learn to invoke and harness this released dunamis in the throes of battle to enhance their martial capabilities—and such warriors are uniformly feared.

So the general view of the rules seems clear: "martial" combat techniques are those combat techniques that are not "arcane" or "magical" combat techniques. But this is where the clarity ends.

There is no official classification in the rules that identifies certain classes as "martial" classes.

The rules seem clear enough to be able to distinguish between martial and arcane techniques, but there is no attempt in the rules text to neatly categorize classes and subclasses this way. Some class and subclass combinations consist entirely of martial techniques, some consist entirely of arcane techniques, and many consist of a combination of both. In my experience, everyone agrees that wizards are not a martial class, and that the battlemaster fighter is a martial class, but there is little agreement on the in-between class and subclass combinations, because this sort of classification is just not something the rules are concerned with.

A possibly helpful categorization I am familiar with is "Full-Half-Third-Martial".

I have often seen the classes and subclasses divided up based on the nature of their spellcasting feature. They are divided into "full casters", "half casters", "third casters", and "martials". The Martial classes in this context would be all those class and subclass combinations which lack a Spellcasting class feature. The rest of the classes are categorized according to the rules used in calculating your spell slots as a multiclassed character:

You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature.

In this context, classes and subclasses are categorized based on the number of spell slots they contribute, with Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards contributing the full array of spell slots, Paladins and Rangers contributing approximately half that of a full caster, and Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters having approximately one third the available slots of a so called full caster.

This categorization seems pretty consistent with my play experience. I've played class/subclasses in each of these categories, and in my experience, the full/half/third designations feel appropriate based on how much I use their spellcasting features. Obviously, playing a Sorcerer is going to mostly consist of using the spellcasting feature, as the main class and subclass features serve to augment your spells. Playing a paladin has always felt, to me, like a fifty-fifty split between being a cleric and a fighter, and playing an Arcane Trickster has had me primarily relying on my mundane roguish features, with the occasional boon from my spellcasting. And of course, my champion fighter made no use of spellcasting. Obviously, your mileage may vary with the half and third casters, depending on the build you use.

To be clear, these categories are derived from a particular mechanic in the rules, but this categorization is not part of what the rules are trying to do. This section of the rules happens to give a convenient and accessible framework for categorizing these classes that seems to work out consistently in play, but this is definitely not "the rules say these are the four categories of classes".

This answer from Xirema gives a more in depth look at the difference between these categories of spellcasters.

\$\endgroup\$
0
15
\$\begingroup\$

The term 'Martial class' isn't a specifically designated rules term, but rather a catch-all used by the community to define those characters whose primary role is, essentially, to hit things with sharp or blunt objects until they die; or, to be less pithy, those character classes whose combat actions are primarily defined by the use of a melee or ranged weapon, or skill checks to deal damage, or apply control effects, rather than the use of spells.

This is specifically used as a grouping in contrast to the broad collection of spellcasting character classes - especially those with access to 9 full levels of spellcasting - who are primarily built around doing that instead. In the context of D&D 5e, that means your 'Martial Classes' would be the Barbarian, the Fighter, the Monk, the Paladin, the Ranger, the Rogue, and arguably the Artificer.

(You'll run into further attempts to categorize and subcategorize various classes as "skill classes" (such as the Rogue), but at the end of the day, the most fundamental and meaningful divide is between those classes with access to a full array of spellcasting tools, and those without.)

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Also, it might be worth mentioning that some classes may be classified as having a mix of spellcasting and martial abilities, such as the paladin, ranger, or artificer - at least for the paladin and ranger in particular, their spellcasting abilities are a somewhat secondary/support feature compared to their weapon use. (This is even more true for the Eldritch Knight fighter subclass and the Arcane Trickster rogue subclass, which are "1/3 casters".) \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Oct 4, 2021 at 19:18
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure I'd ever call an Artificer a 'martial class'. Even if some builds use weapons more than most spellcasters, they're a dedicated gish class at most, and your basic Artillerist or Alchemist may well never make a single weapon attack roll. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 4, 2021 at 19:36
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @DarthPseudonym: For what it's worth, after several sessions of play, my Battle Smith artificer in one campaign had almost never cast spells (most of the time, it was just to heal downed allies) - he primarily used a bow with the Repeating Shot infusion and used his bonus action to command his steel defender. So the relative "martial"-ness of an artificer can definitely vary wildly, especially depending on the subclass. \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Oct 4, 2021 at 20:19
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Let us continue this discussion in chat. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Oct 5, 2021 at 0:16
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I want to highlight that this raises the point that the difference between full-/half-/third-caster is a lot more important for gameplay than martial/non-martial. A very good point. \$\endgroup\$
    – 3C273
    Oct 6, 2021 at 20:30
9
\$\begingroup\$

Martial classes are those classes that mainly deal damage with weapon attacks and aren't full casters

There is consensus on which classes are martial classes, and it should not be necessary to specify unless offering a contrarian opinion. The martial classes are Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue. This seems to correspond to those classes whose primary action in combat is to deal damage using weapon attacks (whether or not augmented by magic) and who aren't full casters.

A quasi-official acknowledgement that some classes are "martial classes"

Martial classes are not defined officially anywhere, so most of this answer is concerned with usage found in online communities. Nonetheless, an "official" recognition of martial classes is arguably found in the licensed product "Spellbook Cards: Martial Powers & Races". This product has cards representing Battlemaster maneuvers, Barbarian totem powers, and Monk techniques. These include things which are actual spells, like the Barbarian's use of beast sense, speak with animals, and commune with nature, implying that spell use does not per se make a class non-martial.

Evidence of consensus among D&D players from online searches

It is fairly easy to find references in online fora to "martial classes". In some cases, the specific classes are listed, in some they are implied. The following examples come from an internet search done at approximately 6pm on October 5, 2021, using StartPage.com with the query string "dnd 5e martial classes". StartPage.com uses Google's search results, but as a privacy-based search engine, it is not conditioned based on your personal search history. I've collected a few examples here. I include the order that they came up in the search results. I will be interested to know if the search results are the same for other English-language searches, or if they vary by country or region.

  • #1. Level One Game Shop Strengths and Weaknesses of D&D Martial Classes does not offer an explanation of what a martial class is, but offers brief descriptions for new players of the following classes:

    • Barbarian
    • Fighter
    • Monk
    • Paladin
    • Ranger
    • Rogue
  • #3. Reddit Sell me on martial classes. OP prefers playing not-martial classes, and is asking to be convinced that playing martial classes is enjoyable. This post starts with:

    So my list of characters is as such: Druid, Sorcerer (meh), Bard (2 of them, 1 which lasted me over a year), and Cleric.

    What do these classes have in common? They are all full casters. (With the exception of Wizards, the list includes all of the full casters in the game.) So this user seems to be using "martial class" as synonymous with "not a full caster".

  • #4. Giant in the Playground forum asks about Martial Classes ranking by category such as damage, survivability, utility, social, etc. The OP specifies the following:

    Classes being Rogue (non-Arcane Trickster) , Fighter (non-Eldritch knight), Barbarian, Monk [NOTE: This question was asked prior to the publication of XGtE and TCoE, so does not mention Arcane Archers, Soulknifes, etc.]

    You could make the argument to include the casting subclasses of the martial but to me it is not a martial class anymore if it has a casting subclass.

    Among the top 10 search results, this was the only countervailing opinion to the list of classes presented by Level Up Game Shop (#1).

  • #5. THIS QUESTION! Wow, that was fast. And a good reason to provide an answer.

  • #8. Mythcreants D&D 5E Classes Ranked From Worst to Best runs through all the official base classes in the game, including Artificer. The Barbarian is classified as martial, and by implication so are Ranger, Monk, and Rogue:

    Continuing the run of martial characters, we have the barbarian.

    It is not clear if Artificers are included in this list--they precede the Ranger in the ranking--but in spite of being a half caster, the author judges them against the game's full casters:

    Its damage output is low, it’s not particularly survivable, and its spell list is average. I’ve heard people say it works well as a support, but I don’t agree. Druid, cleric, bard, sorcerer, or wizard all make significantly better support options.

    Paladins are also a martial class:

    The strongest martial class in the game, paladins are the best mix of offense and defense 5E has to offer.

  • #10. Arcane Eye A Guide to DnD 5e Classes does not define martial classes, but it does refer to both the Monk and Ranger as martial classes. Interestingly, it is primarily concerned with other (nonexclusive) class categorizations such as Utility, Tank, Healer, etc.

Further evidence of consensus from site-specific searches

Searching D&D Beyond turned up this forum post:

  • D&D Beyond Giving Maneuvers to ALL Martials. proposes a rule change for martial classes and lists those classes which would be affected. Paladins are excluded from the rule change, implying that the reader would normally understand Paladins to be included in a list of martial classes:

    So who gets to benefit from these maneuvers? Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Rangers, & Rogues. What, no Paladins? Correct, no Paladins.

Search result #6 was The Gamer 10 Best Feats For Martial Classes, Ranked. I didn't find this useful in answering the current question, but did a site-specific search and found this:

  • TheGamer All Martial Subclasses In Tasha's Cauldron Of Everything, Ranked ranks all subclasses of the Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, i.e. the the same base classes as the Level One Game Shop article (#1):

    Note that the two TCoE Fighter subclasses, the Rune Knight and Psi Knight, do have access to significant magical abilities, like the Players Handbook Eldritch Knight, implying that access to magic does not make a class non-martial. The Artificer, introduced in TCoE, is excluded from this list.

With one exception, all of these articles follow the pattern of (a) including the Paladin and Ranger, both half-casters, and (b) categorizing by base class, not subclass, e.g. all Fighters are considered martial even though some subclasses have spellcasting abilities. I take this as evidence that there is consensus, which the questioner defined in a comment as "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people". Slight variation in usage does not undercut widespread agreement.

The one exception was the Giant in the Playground post, which specifically excluded one-half and one-third casters. I found no other examples that were this restrictive.

Furthermore, there is evidence that martial classes are NOT something that you have to specify to make yourself understood. The typical reader would include Paladins among the martial classes, which is why the D&D Beyond post cited above specifically excluded paladins from a proposed rule change that would apply to all (other) martial classes. The typical reader would include all Fighter and Rogue subclasses, which is why the Giant in the Playground post specifically offered a justification when excluding one-third casters from his list of martial classes.

What do these classes have in common?

All of this makes clear that in common usage the martial classes are Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue. The question is what holds these together? I haven't found a specific reason for this classification, but offer what appears to me to be the common theme.

  1. The primary role of these classes in combat is to deal weapon damage. Even the half-casters are usually making melee or ranged weapon attacks. The Paladin may often or even nearly always supplement their weapon damage with smites, but is usually making a melee attack to do so. The spellcasting of most of these classes tend toward utility. The Eldritch Knight is pushed toward picking up Evocation spells (which include heavy hitters like fireball), but does not get enough spell slots to have this be a replacement for their weapon attacks. Even direct damage Ranger spells like conjure volley and steel wind strike require physical weapons as a material component to cast, and mimic weapon-based damage.
  2. A couple of full caster subclasses might satisfy the criteria of #1, but I haven't found any articles that refer to them as martial classes. Specifically, I am thinking of the Bladesinger Wizard and some Bard subclasses such as College of Valor and College of Swords, which will frequently, perhaps even usually, make melee weapon attacks. The trend seems to be to classify by the base class of Wizard and Bard, even though these subclasses may fulfill a role very similar to a martial class in most combats.

Every definition will have edge cases, and usage may change over time. Nonetheless, there is evidence of a widely accepted meaning, which means the answer to the primary question is YES.

\$\endgroup\$
11
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ This is a website that prides itself on using support from official sources to back up our answers. Community discussions aren't support, they're just other places where they're talking about the issue. The point of this question is whether or not there is an agreed upon definition, which should mean that if there is, you need to show that it's actual and not just opinions from people. Those discussions are articles written by individuals and discussion after. Not actual definitions that are backed up from a more official source. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Oct 5, 2021 at 20:37
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ There is a discussion among the comments regarding what constitutes consensus, and the questioner indicated "is a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people - the group that interfaces with 5e, of which the biggest group - I assume - is the player base." I cannot find the opinions of the player base in the rule books. If this is your objection, you should be voting to close the question (and perhaps have). But my answer is a reasonable answer to an open question. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 5, 2021 at 20:43
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov You're suggesting that I am assuming the conclusion. I could have written an answer like "It is widely agreed that subclasses without spell slots are martial classes. There are conflicting opinions regarding whether 1/3 casters and 1/2 casters are martial classes." That wasn't consistent with what I found, and I attempted to explain why in my proposed answer. I could be wrong. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 5, 2021 at 21:54
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I feel like this answer is apot on, even with the ambiguity. Maybe it should better highlight that "martial class"" is not an official term anymore. Maybe it should better show the gray area around some classes (ranger and paladin as NautArch said (i think)). But it explains the most common usage of the term "martial" used in dnd 5e circles. This is still part of the question. \$\endgroup\$
    – 3C273
    Oct 6, 2021 at 3:01
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Maybe this site tries to always adhere to official sources, but martial is just not an official term anymore. There are NO sources that exists to answer this question. Yet it is still used by players, so I don't think we can just ignore it in a question that does not specifically ask for official sources. ( maybe I should say : in a question that leaves the door open to unofficial sources) \$\endgroup\$
    – 3C273
    Oct 6, 2021 at 3:03
0
\$\begingroup\$

Martial Classes choose their specialized path at third level

From the PHB, these classes are:
Barbarian (Primal Path at 3rd)
Bard (Bard College at 3rd)
Fighter (Martial Archetype at 3rd)
Monk (Monastic Tradition at 3rd)
Paladin (Sacred Oath at 3rd)
Ranger (Ranger Archetype at 3rd)
Rogue (Roguish Archetype at 3rd)

Non-martial classes choose their specialized path before third level
From the PHB, these classes are:
Cleric (Divine Domain at 1st)
Druid (Druid Circle at 2nd)
Sorcerer (Sorcerous Origin at 1st)
Warlock (Otherworldly Patron at 1st)
Wizard (Arcane Tradition at 2nd)

Frankly, I'm not sold on the Bard, although as RedGeomancer notes, some of their colleges probably qualify as martial while others not.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ This reads more like you observed a pattern and just recorded it here without considering if it really is a good answer to the question. Having Warlock as non-martial and Bard as martial is pretty clearly just incorrect. This really needs support from another source beyond just observing that some classes get their archetype features at third level, otherwise it is entirely unsupported and should be deleted. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 9, 2022 at 21:15
-1
\$\begingroup\$

For design intent, look to the Horn

The Horn of Valhalla has been a magic item since at least first edition. It comes in four kinds; from weakest to strongest they are Silver, Brass, Bronze, Iron. Note that these kinds are not arranged by the value of the metal, but by its hardness and suitability for making weapons. Similarly, the more powerful the horn, the more martial the class required to blow it - as befitting the berserkers it summons, you must have a greater warrior ethos to use the more powerful versions. In first edition, this was designated as:

Type of Horn Usable By
Silver Fighters, Clerics, Thieves, and Magic-Users
Brass Fighters, Clerics, and Thieves
Bronze Fighters and Clerics
Iron Fighters only

Here there is a great example of the hierarchy of martialness found in first edition, that matches the description of the 'natural functions' of the classes (on 1eDMG 86).

When this magic item was imported to fifth edition, the four types of horn, as well as the hierarchy of martialness needed to use each type, was kept. Not surprisingly, defining this martialness based on class per se was abandoned, but what is interesting is what was used to replace it. Rather than class itself, specific weapon and armor proficiencies were used. Since in 5e a PC's class is the main source of their proficiencies, the presence or absence of these proficiencies, including one specifically called martial weapons, can be used an objective standard for 'just how martial' a given class is.

The 5e version of this table is:

Type of Horn Requirement
Silver None
Brass Proficiency with all simple weapons
Bronze Proficiency with all medium armor
Iron Proficiency with all martial weapons

For the narrative implications of these proficiencies, we can look to their descriptions:

PHB, Chapter 5 (Equipment); Weapon Proficiency (emphases mine)

Your class grants proficiency in certain weapons, reflecting both the class's focus and the tools you are most likely to use.

and later

Your race, class, and feats can grant you proficiency with certain weapons or categories of weapons. The two categories are simple and martial. Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency. These weapons include clubs, maces, and other weapons often found in the hands of commoners. Martial weapons, including swords, axes, and polearms, require more specialized training to use effectively. Most warriors use martial weapons because these weapons put their fighting style and training to best use.

Thus, in constructing the table of Horn types, the designers of the game specifically chose to represent martialness with certain proficiencies, and those proficiencies are most closely tied to the specific classes that grant them. The other answers to this question are quite good, but many of them have a certain amount of circularity in their reasoning - 'here is what I consider martial, and thus here are the classes that meet my definition'. While 'martial class' is not a game term, we can, through the description of the horn, at least get a glimpse of designer intent in terms of the martialness of the different classes.

Reconfiguring the table to see which classes supply the required proficiencies, and showing the classes only at their highest rank attained, we have:

Degree of Martialness Requirement: Classes
Nonmartial None: Sorcerer, Wizard
Semimartial Proficiency with all simple weapons: Bard, Rogue, Warlock
Paramartial Proficiency with all medium armor: Cleric, Druid1
Martial Proficiency with all martial weapons: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger

Now for my own circularity
The first thing to note in the table is that "Rogues are low", considering that many of the other answers here have them as a martial class. But I would argue that is primarily because of how over-powered the Rogue's Sneak Attack is and how important it is in combat. By any other standard (do they have extensive martial training in weapons and armor, do they avoid melee or thrive in it, are most of their class features related to dealing damage in combat?), Rogues aren't really a martial class. Try this as a thought experiment: suppose that we changed only one thing about Rogues - their Sneak Attack remained mechanically the same but was reflavored as a ranged spell attack they could shoot once per turn. Would they still be a martial class?

The second thing to note is that I deliberately left Monks off the table. Clearly they are a martial class, and yet they have only proficiency with all simple weapons, and so by these criteria would rank with Bards and Warlocks. I would argue that Monks subvert the expectations that the table is built on. They have just as much martial training and focus as Fighters do2, but they specifically undertake this training so that they do not use martial weapons and armor. They are the one class that achieves the same effects with their bodies that other classes due with armor and weapons, and so are specifically a case the table is not designed to diagnose.

My final comment is that while the table paints the broad strokes of martialness, core class is not the only source of proficiencies, and the various subclasses within a class might place differently. For example, a College of Swords Bard has proficiency with medium armor, advancing it up a rank in martialness, and a War Domain cleric starts with proficiency in all martial weapons, making it a fully martial (sub)class.


1 Careful observers will note that Druids are RAW in an interesting position, in that they can use the higher Bronze horn but not the lower Brass one, since their class gives them proficiency in medium armor but not with all simple weapons. This is an artefact of the game-historical oddness of the druid-permitted weapons.

2The description of Monks makes it clear that they have just as much martial training as the full martial classes - in fact, their class feature is called 'martial arts':

Martial Arts At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property.

Monks have a special weapons category of their own ('monk weapons') and they can turn their body into a weapon that is just as effective as the martial weapons wielded by martial classes, increasing in damage as they level, being able to strike opponents only damaged by magic, and adding features like stun. Although they don't function with martial weapons per se, they effectively make unarmed strikes and monk weapons the equivalent of martial weapons.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ “For design intent” Nothing in this answer says anything about design intent. Once again, you’ve just observed a pattern and recorded it without any evidence that it is correct. You provide nothing to connect your answer to the intent of the game’s authors, and like your other answer, is entirely contrived based on a pattern you found. The question is about hobby lingo, and it’s likely you are the first person in the history of our hobby to connect these words in this way, which means this is a poor answer. \$\endgroup\$ Apr 2, 2023 at 7:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov You appear to have forgotten to critique my other, other answer \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Apr 2, 2023 at 21:14
-6
\$\begingroup\$

"Martial class" is not a term that is defined in the game. But "martial weapons" is, and certain classes, as a class feature, provide proficiency with these weapons. That works for me as a simple and functional definition, and is largely congruent with the more complicated definitions given in other answers.

Martial classes are those which provide proficiency in martial weapons as a feature of the class

PHB, Chapter 5 (Equipment); Weapon Proficiency(emphasis mine)

Your race, class, and feats can grant you proficiency with certain weapons or categories of weapons. The two categories are simple and martial. Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency. These weapons include clubs, maces, and other weapons often found in the hands of commoners. Martial weapons, including swords, axes, and polearms, require more specialized training to use effectively. Most warriors use martial weapons because these weapons put their fighting style and training to best use.

Those classes which provide, as a function of the class, proficiency with all martial weapons are 'full' martial classes: With respect to the core classes in the PHB, full-martial classes are: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger

Those classes which provide, as a function of the class, proficiency with some martial weapons are 'semi' martial classes: With respect to the core classes in the PHB, semi-martial classes are: Rogue and Bard (4 martial weapons provided: hand crossbows, longswords, rapiers, and shortswords), Monk (2 martial weapons provided: unarmed strike and shortswords), and Druid (1 martial weapon provided: scimitar)

Monks and Druids are both special cases.

The description of Monks makes it clear that they have just as much martial training as the full martial classes - in fact, their class feature is called 'martial arts'.

Martial Arts At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property.

Monks have a special weapons category of their own ('monk weapons') and they can turn their body into a weapon that is just as effective as the martial weapons wielded by martial classes, increasing in damage as they level, being able to strike opponents only damaged by magic, and adding features like stun. Although they don't function with martial weapons per se, they effectively make unarmed strikes and monk weapons the equivalent of martial weapons, and thus could easily be considered a full martial class.

Druids, on the other hand, gain proficiency with a single martial weapon, the scimitar. I would argue that this is more for game-historical reasons (the association of the druid class with scimitars as a weapon) and the fact that scimitar ended up on the list of martial weapons rather than simple ones. They can easily be considered a non-Martial class.

Those classes which do not provide, as a function of the class, proficiency with any martial weapons are 'non' martial classes: With respect to the core classes in the PHB, non-martial classes are: Cleric, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Any definition of "martial class" that doesn't include the Monk is clearly wrong. And if it doesn't include the Rogue, it's probably wrong, but I know some people like to insist on trying to carve out 'skill class' as it's own thing that for some reason is not allowed to overlap. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 6, 2021 at 14:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ @LessPop_MoreFizz Addressed. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Oct 6, 2021 at 18:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .