Fighter Subclass: The Bravura! (INT-based, tactical, non-magical)

Hussar · Jan 23, 2018

The problem is, I'm trading 2:1 for actions. I have to take an action meaning I can't attack, to trigger a Contingency. So, I lose my attack this round to create a Contingency (which may not actually occur) and lose my attack next round to pay for that Contingency.

Am I understanding that right? The only way that works is if the Contingency is more than twice as powerful as my regular attack. After all, there is a chance that the Contingency fails, meaning I've lost two attacks for no results. If I can only get twice the value, then there's no point. It's a sucker's bet.

There's a very good reason you get a +d8 bonus to damage with Commander's Strike.

Actually, looking at it, there are no moves/contingencies that actually straight up grant any attacks. They all key off of other triggers. Meaning that if the trigger doesn't occur, you flat up lose out on the reaction.

I take back my earlier approval. This class fails very badly. Cool idea but math fail.

Guest 6801328 · Jan 23, 2018

Hussar said:
Actually, looking at it, there are no moves/contingencies that actually straight up grant any attacks. They all key off of other triggers. Meaning that if the trigger doesn't occur, you flat up lose out on the reaction.

It's an impossible class to balance perfectly because the power of the reactions, relative to a regular attack, has to be inversely proportional to their frequency, which can't be predicted. That said, I think most of us will have a gut feel for how often these contingencies occur, and which can be induced to occur.

Only playtesting will tell...

I take back my earlier approval. This class fails very badly. Cool idea but math fail.

Ah, it was fun while it lasted...

Wednesday Boy · Jan 23, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
I liked the idea that it could be any skill: "You distract the guard while Bob climbs the wall and I try to calm the guard dogs..."

Also, I think it has to last longer than a minute, for situations like going into an audience with the king. The wording I'm looking for is that the Bravura has to state what the goal is, and for each participant any action that is made in support of that goal is fair game, but each player gets to pick what it is.

I thought about +INT as the modifier, but then how to limit the number of "allies"? Can he make a plan before a battle and give the entire army a bonus? "In your party" isn't really a technical term. I thought about it only working for Player Characters, but I can imagine circumstances where you might want NPCs to have it. And +INT to INT allies makes the value of ability the square of your Int mod, which is too steep a curve. That's how I ended up with Advantage to INT allies.

I like using it for any skill that's used to meet the team's objective. That's useful and thematic.

I know you want to polish it up but since at least for the time being it's purely a homebrew, I think it's okay to use the informal "in your party". If you're playing this subclass the GM is already comfortable making decisions and saying yes to homebrew material, so they're probably just as comfortable making ad hoc decisions about who constitutes "your party" in various scenes.

Guest 6801328 · Jan 23, 2018

Wednesday Boy said:
I like using it for any skill that's used to meet the team's objective. That's useful and thematic.

I know you want to polish it up but since at least for the time being it's purely a homebrew, I think it's okay to use the informal "in your party". If you're playing this subclass the GM is already comfortable making decisions and saying yes to homebrew material, so they're probably just as comfortable making ad hoc decisions about who constitutes "your party" in various scenes.

Great point, thanks. Yeah, I worry too much about making it sound official.

TwoSix · Jan 23, 2018

Hussar said:
The problem is, I'm trading 2:1 for actions. I have to take an action meaning I can't attack, to trigger a Contingency. So, I lose my attack this round to create a Contingency (which may not actually occur) and lose my attack next round to pay for that Contingency.

Granted, this text is going through fast and furious edits, but I'm not seeing where it requires an action to trigger a Contingency; it appears to only cost an attack from the start of your next turn.

Considering that fighter subclasses are generally underwhelming, granting a usable bonus action (by trading it in for a Contingency) right at level 3 without the cost of a feat or choosing to do subpar dual-wielding is a pretty nice feature in and of itself.

Guest 6801328 · Jan 23, 2018

TwoSix said:
Considering that fighter subclasses are generally underwhelming, granting a usable bonus action (by trading it in for a Contingency) right at level 3 without the cost of a feat or choosing to do subpar dual-wielding is a pretty nice feature in and of itself.

Yes...except that to avoid OP multi-class exploits the latest thinking is to not allow the bonus action to be traded for a reaction until level 15. Plus it just cleans up the complexity of the ability at level 3: "You can take an extra action in exchange for one of your attacks on your next turn."

mellored · Jan 23, 2018

Cap'n Kobold said:
An alternative would be to make the reaction abilities a little more powerful, but require that the Bravura hold back actions or attacks from the previous round rather than being able to spend them in advance from the next round.

I've tried that a few times, and in a few ways.
Never got it to work right for 3 big reasons.

1: It was unfun to waste your effect.
2: You had to remember what you where doing several turns later.
3: Balance revolves too much around the player skill of predicting what's going to happen.

i.e.

Warlord: I'm helping the paladin with his next attack, reduce damage to the rogue, and slowing kobold 3's speed by 5'.
Kobold 1: I attack the paladin, CRIT.
Paladin: I lay hands on myself.
*Warlord: ....
Kobold 2: I run at the wizard.
*Warlord: Wait, is that the one I slowed?
....

Giving up actions after the fact.

Kobold 1: I attack the paladin, CRIT
*Warlord: I reduce the damage.
Paladin: I make an attack.
*Warlord: I give advantage.
Kobold 2: I run at the rogue.
*Warlord: I slow it down.
...
Warlord Turn: I did 3 cool things this round. So next turn.

mellored · Jan 23, 2018

Hussar said:
The problem is, I'm trading 2:1 for actions. I have to take an action meaning I can't attack, to trigger a Contingency. So, I lose my attack this round to create a Contingency (which may not actually occur) and lose my attack next round to pay for that Contingency.

Am I understanding that right?

I don't think you are.
Your trading 1:1.

They all key off of other triggers. Meaning that if the trigger doesn't occur, you flat up lose out on the reaction.

If you don't use any reactions, you don't lose any attacks.
So you can just hit something like a normal fighter would.

i.e.
If you have 2 attacks (+1 reaction), and use 3 contingencies, you can make 0 attack on your turn.
If you have 2 attacks (+1 reaction), and use 2 contingencies, you can make 1 attack on your turn.
If you have 2 attacks (+1 reaction), and use 1 contingencies, you can make 2 attacks on your turn.
If you have 2 attacks (+1 reaction), and use 0 contingencies, you can make 2 attacks on your turn.

Actually, looking at it, there are no moves/contingencies that actually straight up grant any attacks.

Yea, tha's missing. Easy enough to add.

When an ally makes a weapon attack against an enemy within 5’ of you, as a reaction you can let the ally make an additional attack against the target as a bonus action.
If you have 1 hand free, and their attack hits, it deals an extra 1d6 damage.
If you have 2 hands freee, and their attack hits, it deals an extra 1d12 damage.

Cap'n Kobold · Jan 23, 2018

mellored said:
I've tried that a few times, and in a few ways.
Never got it to work right for 3 big reasons.

1: It was unfun to waste your effect.
2: You had to remember what you where doing several turns later.
3: Balance revolves too much around the player skill of predicting what's going to happen.

i.e.

Warlord: I'm helping the paladin with his next attack, reduce damage to the rogue, and slowing kobold 3's speed by 5'.
Kobold 1: I attack the paladin, CRIT.
Paladin: I lay hands on myself.
*Warlord: ....
Kobold 2: I run at the wizard.
*Warlord: Wait, is that the one I slowed?
....

I'm not sure I follow that. Why wouldn't the warlord reduce damage to the Paladin, block the kobold going for the wizard, and maybe keep the last action for a later contingency?

Why would you have to remember what you were doing several turns later? Don't you get to choose a contingency when you take your reaction? Its unlikely that a bravura is going to be able to give up more than three attacks, so remembering how many you have available, and keeping count as you use them doesn't seem like it would be an issue.

Guest 6801328 · Jan 23, 2018

Cap'n Kobold said:
Why would you have to remember what you were doing several turns later? Don't you get to choose a contingency when you take your reaction? Its unlikely that a bravura is going to be able to give up more than three attacks, so remembering how many you have available, and keeping count as you use them doesn't seem like it would be an issue.

I'm not exactly sure what he was saying there, either, but the reasons I'm opposed to giving up the attacks first and then getting the reactions are:
1) If you don't give up any attacks you'll get one reaction like everybody else and then be SOL. The whole point of this subclass is to give you flexibility.
2) If you do give up some attacks and then none of the situations arise you've just wasted your turn.

By making it a credit account rather than a debit account, you get to handle contingencies as they arise, and if they don't you still get to attack.

I will agree with mellored on one point: I want to minimize the extent to which the effectiveness of this class is dependent upon the player's ability to make predictions.

Fighter Subclass: The Bravura! (INT-based, tactical, non-magical)

Hussar

Legend

Guest 6801328

Guest

Wednesday Boy

The Nerd WhoFell to Earth

Guest 6801328

Guest

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

Guest 6801328

Guest

mellored

Legend

mellored

Legend

Cap'n Kobold

Hero

Guest 6801328

Guest

Similar Threads