[RPG] What are martial classes

classdnd-5eterminology

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?

Best Answer

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.

Related Topic