Martial characters should have nice things Part I: What should martial characters be able to do?

[Coriat]

RJGrady wrote:

Mondoglimmer wrote:

"Fun" is kind of subjective in general. There's at least half a dozen goals people have when people play the game, and which one is more prevalent changes from person to person. Many changes to the core game are going to make things less fun for one person and more fun for another due simply to player preference. Some might say that wizards getting some spells removed would be less fun, but perhaps those spells weren't actually fun in the first place, or the presence of those spells made things less fun for the non-wizards. Taking things away from people doesn't always mean ruining their fun.

I'm not anti-fun, I'm just like, "Man, if you're going to warp the fabric of the universe or something, i think that should be, like, at least a full round action or something."

Heh.

Raith Shadar wrote:

A high level martial is far more visually impressive than a caster (except perhaps an evoker).

Maybe than a caster who hasn't cast anything.

If they have? Well, tell that to Frightful Aspect. Or Form of the Dragon. Or Sunburst. Or Storm of Vengeance. Or Rift of Ruin, or Wall of Lava, or Phantasmal Revenge, or Plague Storm, or Giant Shape.

Or just good old Summon Monster. It's pretty visually impressive to call forth a gargantuan beast in the midst of battle.

Etc, etc, etc. There's far, far too many spells with badass visual effects to keep listing them all.

[n o 417]

Detect Magic wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

Default martial characters (like fighters) shouldn't be bending or breaking the laws governing the universe (or multiverse, I suppose, since this is Pathfinder we're talking about). Obviously, hybrids like paladins and rangers are going to be spellcasting, and monks will be doing all sorts of supernatural things, but when I think of martial, I think fighter. Fighters should be able to do incredible things, but they should be limited by what's physically possible; no jumping seven miles, flying, or otherwise playing wizard. Leave wizarding to the wizard-folk.

Only if you have a binary distinction between casters and non-casters. Anyone intelligent/wise/charismatic enough can learn spells.

It makes sense for martials to at least learn cantrips like mending, create water, and spark. It makes sense for martials to receive training in using magic items. And the martial classes should reflect that, by having UMD as a class skill, and a bonus to it.

[Stephen Ede]

Marthkus wrote:

Mondoglimmer wrote:

Taking things away from people doesn't always mean ruining their fun.

Unless you are talking about tumors, I don't grasp your point.

With all respect that attitude is a large part of the problem. Giving people more candy and drugs isn't actually making a better game. And frankly the bulk of players (as opposed to posters) in my experience don't actually want more power. They want choice, fun and to feel useful. None of that correlates closely to power or will get them that upset about losing power levels that most players don't use. For instant there a lot of Arcane casters who consider the way to play a caster is to use blasting spells. You nerf the DC's on those control spells and most of them aren't really going to care that much.

[The_Hanged_Man]

Stephen Ede wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Mondoglimmer wrote:

Taking things away from people doesn't always mean ruining their fun.

Unless you are talking about tumors, I don't grasp your point.

Giving people more candy and drugs isn't actually making a better game.

Sure. It is easy to give up something you never had. But just try taking candy or drugs away from people and they will flip out. Crane Wing being a case in point. If a single feat chain can cause this much trouble, imagine how monkeying with the DCs of a school of magic or the entire magic system will play out.

I can see an upper level boost to martials work out, but weakening casters will never fly in the community.

[Marthkus]

The_Hanged_Man wrote:

Stephen Ede wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Mondoglimmer wrote:

Taking things away from people doesn't always mean ruining their fun.

Unless you are talking about tumors, I don't grasp your point.

Giving people more candy and drugs isn't actually making a better game.

Sure. It is easy to give up something you never had. But just try taking candy or drugs away from people and they will flip out. Crane Wing being a case in point. If a single feat chain can cause this much trouble, imagine how monkeying with the DCs of a school of magic or the entire magic system will play out.

I can see an upper level boost to martials work out, but weakening casters will never fly in the community.

Yep!

Although by the look of our "solutions" it looks like the game should just be left alone.

[TheSideKick]

using the generic term "warrior" in place of a mundane or low magic character class.

i think warriors need less dependence on magic at higher tiers. class features should replace the Christmas tree effect that occurs once 12th level comes around.

wizard have very few items they need to function, maybe a rod or 2 some defensive item like bracers of armor (which arnt even mandatory) and maybe a few pearls of power to get to level 9. other then that they have a few high cost material components for obscure spells, which they now can bypass that with blood magic or what ever feat that is.

warriors on the other hand need +10 weapons, +10 armor and a slew of situational knick knacks to overcome the short comings of their class. ironically the wizard/sorcerer doesn't have these short comings because spells can offset their weaknesses.

once a warrior can boast "i have the best saves" or "i have immunity to magic of this type" then this gap will be shortened. they need something, anything really, to change the dependence on consumables and magic in the late game.

[Neurophage]

Marthkus wrote:

by the look of our "solutions" it looks like the game should just be left alone.

Unacceptable. Even a bad solution is better than no solution. If the current situation remains as it is, nothing will be solved. A new paradigm, even a bad one, will still promote discussion about what worked and what didn't. Some segment of the fanbase will complain no matter what's done, but not being able to come up with an idea that appeases everyone is not an excuse to do nothing.

[Marthkus]

Neurophage wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

by the look of our "solutions" it looks like the game should just be left alone.

Unacceptable. Even a bad solution is better than no solution. If the current situation remains as it is, nothing will be solved. A new paradigm, even a bad one, will still promote discussion about what worked and what didn't. Some segment of the fanbase will complain no matter what's done, but not being able to come up with an idea that appeases everyone is not an excuse to do nothing.

Perfection is the enemy of the good. Segmenting the fan base is a bad idea. It's not like the changes will bring in new players.

Most of us playing this game came from 3.5 or were encouraged to play by people who used to play 3.5. Tradition is a big part of this game. Cool magic items do not break tradition, but nefing casters (more than what PF already did) and giving martials weaboo fightan magic does break tradition.

The "christmas tree" effect is a corner stone of the 3.x genera. It's better to embrace and enhance that concept than it is to try and do away with it.

There will be no PF 2.0. It does not make sense for the market niche PF fills.

[Neurophage]

Marthkus wrote:

Neurophage wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

by the look of our "solutions" it looks like the game should just be left alone.

Unacceptable. Even a bad solution is better than no solution. If the current situation remains as it is, nothing will be solved. A new paradigm, even a bad one, will still promote discussion about what worked and what didn't. Some segment of the fanbase will complain no matter what's done, but not being able to come up with an idea that appeases everyone is not an excuse to do nothing.

Perfection is the enemy of the good. Segmenting the fan base is a bad idea. It's not like the changes will bring in new players.

Most of us playing this game came from 3.5 or were encouraged to play by people who used to play 3.5. Tradition is a big part of this game. Cool magic items do not break tradition, but nefing casters (more than what PF already did) and giving martials weaboo fightan magic does break tradition.

The "christmas tree" effect is a corner stone of the 3.x genera. It's better to embrace and enhance that concept than it is to try and do away with it.

There will be no PF 2.0. It does not make sense for the market niche PF fills.

Claiming that things fine because they're "tradition" is just an appeal to inherent nature. There's a big difference between what is and what should be. What I see is that the vocal segment of the fanbase complains about everything. Whenever a new book comes out, the fans complain. Whenever some kind of errata is released, the fans complain. If a new option is better than core, the fans cry "power creep." If a new option is worse than core, they cry that it's a waste of design space. Make no mistake, 3e was my first system, and I've played more of 3.5 than of any other system, and even I can see that regardless of "tradition" things are not as they should be. We'll never figure out what should be so long as no one bothers trying to find out what could be. You say that perfection is the enemy of the good, I say apathy is the enemy of progress.

Tome of Battle was the greatest book in all of 3.5 because it was the only book in the line that threatened the status quo, and that's because the status quo was bad. We dealt with it because that's what we had, but we shouldn't have to. It's been almost fifteen years since third edition started and people are still having the same arguments about the same stuff. And yet, they object to every idea of change even though they know that they don't like what's already there. At this point, nothing will cause Pathfinder's fanbase to segment because they don't actually know what they want. Whether or not Tome of Battle was actually a good book isn't relevant. It did something different and, even if that something wasn't what the fans wanted, it promoted discussion about what they did want.

[voska66]

TheSideKick wrote:

using the generic term "warrior" in place of a mundane or low magic character class.

i think warriors need less dependence on magic at higher tiers. class features should replace the Christmas tree effect that occurs once 12th level comes around.

wizard have very few items they need to function, maybe a rod or 2 some defensive item like bracers of armor (which arnt even mandatory) and maybe a few pearls of power to get to level 9. other then that they have a few high cost material components for obscure spells, which they now can bypass that with blood magic or what ever feat that is.

warriors on the other hand need +10 weapons, +10 armor and a slew of situational knick knacks to overcome the short comings of their class. ironically the wizard/sorcerer doesn't have these short comings because spells can offset their weaknesses.

once a warrior can boast "i have the best saves" or "i have immunity to magic of this type" then this gap will be shortened. they need something, anything really, to change the dependence on consumables and magic in the late game.

Wizards are one of the most magic item dependent classes out there. Try playing a Wizard with stingy GM. I've done it and it spells death for the Wizard. Clerics on the other do just fine with few magic items. I found I ran out of spells too quick with no magic items, my saves sucked. Really missed that cloak of resistance. AC sucked as I was limited to what mage armor and shield could provide. Really missed the scrolls and wands though.

[voska66]

I like what a martial class can do with Mythic Powers. Now that's a true martial hero is.

Casters for the most part are mythic already. Spells that bend reality is mythic compared to mere rogue or fighter.

I'd be curious to see what happens with Mythic fighter in group of casters with no mythic tiers.

[K177Y C47]

voska66 wrote:

TheSideKick wrote:

using the generic term "warrior" in place of a mundane or low magic character class.

i think warriors need less dependence on magic at higher tiers. class features should replace the Christmas tree effect that occurs once 12th level comes around.

wizard have very few items they need to function, maybe a rod or 2 some defensive item like bracers of armor (which arnt even mandatory) and maybe a few pearls of power to get to level 9. other then that they have a few high cost material components for obscure spells, which they now can bypass that with blood magic or what ever feat that is.

warriors on the other hand need +10 weapons, +10 armor and a slew of situational knick knacks to overcome the short comings of their class. ironically the wizard/sorcerer doesn't have these short comings because spells can offset their weaknesses.

once a warrior can boast "i have the best saves" or "i have immunity to magic of this type" then this gap will be shortened. they need something, anything really, to change the dependence on consumables and magic in the late game.

Wizards are one of the most magic item dependent classes out there. Try playing a Wizard with stingy GM. I've done it and it spells death for the Wizard. Clerics on the other do just fine with few magic items. I found I ran out of spells too quick with no magic items, my saves sucked. Really missed that cloak of resistance. AC sucked as I was limited to what mage armor and shield could provide. Really missed the scrolls and wands though.

Actually that is rather false... Try playing a fighter without your magical Sword, your magical armor, your boots of flying, your gloves of dueling, your cloak of resistance, or any other fancy dansy magical items...

This is kind of like how people try and claim that a fighter should just runaround with an Anti-Magic Field until they find out that the Anti-Magic Field actually hurts fighters WORSE than wizards.

[Pan]

voska66 wrote:

I like what a martial class can do with Mythic Powers. Now that's a true martial hero is.

Casters for the most part are mythic already. Spells that bend reality is mythic compared to mere rogue or fighter.

I'd be curious to see what happens with Mythic fighter in group of casters with no mythic tiers.

This is interesting. Anybody with experience in mythic care to chime in?

[Scavion]

Ilja wrote:

Leveler of Armies
Your swings are so mighty hordes of enemies fall before you.
Prerequisites: BaB +11, Great Cleave
Benefit: Whenever you make a cleave attack, you roll the attack roll as normal. Anyone within ten times your threat range with an AC equal or lower to your rolled attack takes damage equal to your weapon's base damage plus your strength modifier.

Sauron had this.

[Marthkus]

Neurophage wrote:

Tome of Battle was the greatest book in all of 3.5 because it was the only book in the line that threatened the status quo, and that's because the status quo was bad.

Ah yes the Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic.

That was a great MECHANICAL solution, but it was an utter flop in terms of thematic areas. I hated that book. It didn't fix martials, it just created a slew of martials+more classes.

[Neurophage]

Marthkus wrote:

Neurophage wrote:

Tome of Battle was the greatest book in all of 3.5 because it was the only book in the line that threatened the status quo, and that's because the status quo was bad.

Ah yes the Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic.

That was a great MECHANICAL solution, but it was an utter flop in terms of thematic areas. I hated that book. It didn't fix martials, it just created a slew of martials+more classes.

What thematic areas? It's a generic fantasy system, how can it have any set theme other than whatever the GM decides to give it? What, if the book replaced any references to far-flung temples and every instance of the word "katana" with far-reaching empires that completely eschew magic and legendary heroes whose abilities completely eclipsed those of normal warriors would these complaints be lessened? If the only complaints people have are thematic ones, their complaints are worthless because the theme is whatever they feel like applying. It didn't create "a slew of martials+more classes." It created three base classes and a small group of prestige classes.

The people who complained the most when Tome of Battle came out were caster-players who didn't want martials having anything good. Except the options in Tome of Battle were exactly what martials needed. They were options that gave varied effects in combat, were entirely reliant upon the user's martial prowess, had a narrower focus than spells but were able to be used more frequently.

As far as that absurd name goes, the only reason people complained that martial adepts were too "anime" was because they were stuck in the mindset that Japan was the first civilization that featured heroes who could do amazing things without magic. Heracles was able to kill the hydra by shooting its heads faster than it could grow new ones. Atalanta routinely won footraces using a method that is completely impossible. Lancelot was such a powerful swordsman that, even without a sword or armor, he could kill a heavily-armed and armored man by beating him with a stick. Saint George, with nothing to his name other than his sword, his horse and his own faith and conviction, killed dragons on a regular basis. Western sword styles are just as steeped in philosophy and false mysticism as eastern sword styles.

Tome of Battle was exactly was people wanted, but the vocal minority whined and cried about how they'd rather have a broken system than a different system. And now the name sticks because a bunch of whiny, impotent plebeians were louder than the rest of the fanbase when they screamed "That's not my D&D!"

[Marthkus]

ToB just made caster martials

It didn't fix martials

[LoneKnave]

There was like 2-3 expicitly mystical styles, but the rest was pretty martial to me. I mean, a lot of it was just shaking off effects, hitting really hard, movement in unusual ways, etc.

What made them casters exactly?

[Marthkus]

LoneKnave wrote:

There was like 2-3 expicitly mystical styles, but the rest was pretty martial to me. I mean, a lot of it was just shaking off effects, hitting really hard, movement in unusual ways, etc.

What made them casters exactly?

William Wallace: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if HE were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

With the ToB "fix", William would just shoot fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

[aegrisomnia]

^ By successfully making reference to popular culture, Marthkus is hereby declared the right and lawful winner of this thread. Case closed.

[Rerednaw]

Neurophage wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Neurophage wrote:

Tome of Battle was the greatest book in all of 3.5 because it was the only book in the line that threatened the status quo, and that's because the status quo was bad.

Ah yes the Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic.

That was a great MECHANICAL solution, but it was an utter flop in terms of thematic areas. I hated that book. It didn't fix martials, it just created a slew of martials+more classes.

What thematic areas? It's a generic fantasy system...stuck in the mindset that Japan was the first civilization that featured heroes who could do amazing things without magic. Heracles was able to kill the hydra by shooting its heads faster than it could grow new ones. Atalanta routinely won footraces using a method that is completely impossible. Lancelot was such a powerful swordsman that, even without a sword...

I agree. While Tome of Battle had it's own setting, you didn't have to use it. In fact the plethora of complaints I read were:

"I don't want fighters to be Jedi."
"I don't want fighters to be anime."

My response was okay so what *do* you want them to do and why?

If the answer was "casters too powerful, martials should get some too" after mechanics, everything in the game system is fluff.

You want to strike mighty blows? Okay...Bull's Strength
"But I don't want it to be magic?"

Magic? Then what? Did you want a fighter to have an innate ability that enables him to call upon inner reserves of physical strength in times of need?

Okay...we'll call it Bull's Strength.

I mentioned it earlier but the fluff fills out the game. Both things below do exactly the same thing...damage at a distance. But one is a spell and one is an item.

"I want to hit things at a distance!"
Okay...Acid Arrow!
"I don't want it to be magic."
Okay...here's my ancestor's bow handed down through the generations that you have shown extraordinary skill with.

There are plenty of systems that use this mechanic.

Would you really care from an optimization standpoint if you are using melee weapon #1 or melee weapon #2, if they were mechanically the same?
To create parity they should be. Ditto for whether melee weapon #1 was an ancient anti-life sword of Eld, forged in the heart of a star and quenched in the icy void of the Far Realms and weapon #2 was the Palm of Death from a Monk. Same effect, one hit in melee and you're dead. But the fluff makes it different.

As others and I have said, bringing about parity took away the fluff (4th edition is an excellent example of this). Suddenly the game was not dungeons and dragons anymore. High fantasy with dimensional ripping city-destroying magics was replaced with...magic damage on par with a guy with a baseball bat. Did it fix the "what should fighters do when compared to casters?" Certainly. Did it work? Hey, where did all the Pathfinders come from?* :)

So doing the same to Pathfinder? Would it still be Pathfinder...and a viable product? Sure there are some things you can do...at what point is it enough? And at what point does it start sounding like FATE, FUDGE, GURPS, Hero, 4e?

I think Tome of Battle did about the best job it could while staying in the framework of 3.5x. In 3.5x Spells > fighters. So the fix was fighters+spells.

If you want fighters to have the power in Pathfinder that you currently only have with magic, you have to give them the same powers as magic. If you don't want to call it magic, fine. That's fluff. Pathfinder already did some of this. Fighters don't cast Bane they use Dazzling Display. Mechanically they are almost the same...a penalty to attacks and checks. But the difference is fluff. And at what point do you stop? Already there are multiple posts about how martials turn into anime etc. or as Neurophage placed it plenty of classic myths and legends.

But it seems to be a contradiction.

Martials need more power!
I don't want my martial to be like <insert powerful heroic cliche>.
So which is it? You want more power akin to what magic wielders have...but you don't want it to look like magic? Fine...call them ahem 'feats.'

I am totally for redefining martials in the heroic (Mythic) mold. I'd even bring back their immunities from 1st edition where they had the best defenses (i.e. saves and hit points and AC) period. But doesn't bring up to nearly where magic-wielders are...and that is the game system as it currently stands. You either bring the one group up...or your nerf the others down. Either way, everyone is unhappy...i.e. the definition of compromise. :)

*Disclaimer. I actually like 4E. But hard to find a group :)

[LoneKnave]

Marthkus wrote:

LoneKnave wrote:

There was like 2-3 expicitly mystical styles, but the rest was pretty martial to me. I mean, a lot of it was just shaking off effects, hitting really hard, movement in unusual ways, etc.

What made them casters exactly?

William Wallace: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if HE were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

With the ToB "fix", William would just shoot fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

Except they wouldn't, unless you take Desert Wind. I think that's the one with the fire anyway.

[Marthkus]

I like mythic because it actually makes sense why the martial is doing mythic things. They aren't just grunting and flexing their muscles to teleport or run past foes and leave a fire trail.

[Marthkus]

LoneKnave wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

LoneKnave wrote:

There was like 2-3 expicitly mystical styles, but the rest was pretty martial to me. I mean, a lot of it was just shaking off effects, hitting really hard, movement in unusual ways, etc.

What made them casters exactly?

William Wallace: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if HE were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

With the ToB "fix", William would just shoot fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

Except they wouldn't, unless you take Desert Wind. I think that's the one with the fire anyway.

Except they wouldn't unless they did.

K

[LoneKnave]

Wow, okay, so since a supernatural style as an option exists in the book that means all the classes in the book are fighter casters?

So I guess rogues are not mundane now because they have minor magic?

[Marthkus]

LoneKnave wrote:

So I guess rogues are not mundane now because they have minor magic?

All my rogues do for arcane strike and use UMD when sneak attack doesn't work.

[LoneKnave]

So the rogue class is not mundane because of the existence of a supernatural option?

[Ilja]

Marthkus wrote:

LoneKnave wrote:

There was like 2-3 expicitly mystical styles, but the rest was pretty martial to me. I mean, a lot of it was just shaking off effects, hitting really hard, movement in unusual ways, etc.

What made them casters exactly?

William Wallace: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if HE were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

William Wallace was what, a 3rd level fighter?

William Wallace would fit really bad in a party of high-level casters trying to stop Asmodeus from dragging a country into hell.

[Marthkus]

LoneKnave wrote:

So the rogue class is not mundane because of the existence of a supernatural option?

Yes?

[Malwing]

I think I would have liked Path of War/Tome of Battle if there was a martial mana/stamina pool rather than the weird vancian fighting spells that they have.

I don't mind swordcraft Voodoo, weeaboo DBZ fighting, or 'might as well be magic' but Vancian Swordfighting just turned me off and feels weird. I subscribed to Path of War, but I'm not 100% on using it because it seems like a lot classes and other stuff when all I really need is a feat that gives a stamina pool that refills with a 5 min rest and for the maneuvers/stances to be combat feats that use the pool. I didn't need new classes and explainations of initiator levels and a whole system of stuff that only really results in playing 4th edition per encounter powers.

[LoneKnave]

Marthkus wrote:

LoneKnave wrote:

So the rogue class is not mundane because of the existence of a supernatural option?

Yes?

Does a martial class exist in PF?

Fighters can take Elemental Fist, Dragon Style, etc. as bonus feats, Barbarians can rage so hard they grow wings, set their weapons on fire, and have ghosts help them out, Paladins and Rangers cast spells.

What is your criteria for a class to be not William Wallace?

[Malwing]

LoneKnave wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

LoneKnave wrote:

So the rogue class is not mundane because of the existence of a supernatural option?

Yes?

Does a martial class exist in PF?

Fighters can take Elemental Fist, Dragon Style, etc. as bonus feats, Barbarians can rage so hard they grow wings, set their weapons on fire, and have ghosts help them out, Paladins and Rangers cast spells.

What is your criteria for a class to be not William Wallace?

This is why I don't mind weeaboo fighting past 10th level.

[TheSideKick]

LoneKnave wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

LoneKnave wrote:

So the rogue class is not mundane because of the existence of a supernatural option?

Yes?

Does a martial class exist in PF?

i feel that any class that doesn't have a option for having a supernatural/spellcasting class feature/ability qualifies as a mundane class, or martial if thats the preferred term on these boards.

fighters, rogues, cavalier, gunslingers, barbarians, and the new ACG classes qualify as such (brawler, i think the other 2 are slayer and archivist?).

barbarians have a supernatural path that opened up for them, but fighters rogues and the new ACG classes dont.

[GoatToucher]

Neurophage:

I think referring to those with alternate viewpoints as "impotent plebeians" in inappropriately insulting.

It is also an obvious attempt to display an elevated mastery of vocabulary, which is sadly lacking, as they were neither powerless (they got what they wanted) not were they an underclass (despite your claims of minority, they got what they wanted).

You have an axe to grind. Awesome. Slow your roll and keep things polite.

[Ilja]

TheSideKick, rogues have a bunch of talents and fighters get bonus combat feats which can be elemental fist. But you can build rogues, fighters and barbs that never get SU/SLA, just like with the ToB classes.

[Marthkus]

Ilja wrote:

TheSideKick, rogues have a bunch of talents and fighters get bonus combat feats which can be elemental fist. But you can build rogues, fighters and barbs that never get SU/SLA, just like with the ToB classes.

Can you do that with a ToB character and still have it be the "fix" you are looking for?

*assuming you are looking for a fix*

[TheSideKick]

Ilja wrote:

TheSideKick, rogues have a bunch of talents and fighters get bonus combat feats which can be elemental fist. But you can build rogues, fighters and barbs that never get SU/SLA, just like with the ToB classes.

my comment wasn't specifically directed at ToB, it was a general definition of what a martial (mundane) is. like i said even though a barbarian has supernatural options it isnt a supernatural class, but has the potential for it.