The Warrior: Fighter & Feats Homebrew

[DaedalusX51]

So I've been working on this Fighter and Feats rework for a bit now.
I'm not personally in love with either the Champion or Battle Master subclasses by themselves. However, I have combined them together to create a new subclass to subsume the archetypal fighters such as knights, cavaliers, scouts, etc.

As part of this reworking, I wanted to provide the Fighter class with its own system of features. Something that would provide Fighters with round by round decision making without requiring a resource to be consumed. Something that couldn't be taken away if the group decided on not using feats or multi-classing. In fact, I think some of my other local groups want to shy away from using feats due to their possible overpowered nature (the -5/+10 and cover removing features for example).

My solution to this was to remove all of the combat feats, such as Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, from the game. In turn I would keep the mechanics that I didn't find overpowered and implement them as maneuvers in the new Warrior subclass. With the addition of a new Martial Adept feat, I still allow other classes to dip in and grab two maneuvers. This allows the Fighter to have 6 or 8 maneuvers with the feat while other classes can only gain 2.

In addition, I have reworked the remaining feats and added prerequisites for most of them.

Please take a look at what I have created and give me your input. I really appreciate any suggestions or concerns.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxZxYfpUunBsWVdLUkFtWmVaWms

@DEFCON 1

 

[DEFCON 1]

I always enjoy these updates to your Warrior. There's loads of great stuff in it and I think it all works really well for what I always felt the baseline Fighter should have been.

If I was to get nitpicky on a few things (none of which are deal-breakers, but merely just my own personal picadillos on how I like to see things), here are a couple comments:

Cavalier: For what it is intended to do, it works great. My only issue with it is really just a philosophical one, which aligns kind of like what the issue used to be for Rangers and Favored Enemy (but which was fixed in 5E with the Hunter subclass). Mainly that the kit gets its abilities in only one particular way-- on the back of a mount. Which means that for however much of a percentage a DM chooses to run his campaign where being mounted isn't an availability to that player (dungeons, inside castles etc.), this kit is useless. Just like when so much of the older Ranger's special combat stuff used to only work on their Favored Enemies, meaning that any fight that wasn't against their Favored Enemies they were without anything special to do.

5E fixed that for Hunter Rangers by giving them abilities that were flavorfly intended to illustrate a type of favored enemy (say, oversized creatures, or hordes of mid-sized creatures) but which had a much wider range of time they could be used. Not ALL the time, obviously... but enough to know that the ability wasn't going to be shut down on you for 85% or more of the game (whenever the DM chose not to throw a specific type of enemy that you happened to be favored in.)

In many ways, I almost wish there was a way to accomplish that with the Cavalier as well... a trio of abilities that are flavorfly intended to invoke being mounted (and perhaps even be better while mounted due to the natural advantages being mounted gives you in certain abilities)... but which could still actually find use when not (since so much of the game never actually is except in very niche campaigns.) What those kind of abilities are? That I have no idea! LOL! It'd be one of the more difficult kits to design I would imagine (and why it seems most people don't even try.) Abilities that are usable while on the ground and which feel like they are representative of the mounted combatant... and perhaps actually just get better and more powerful when the player actually does get up onto the back of a horse. The hard part being finding that line between not being too overpowerful when mounted, but then also not completely useless when not. It's a big ask!

Knight: You straddle the line in the names of your kits between descriptors (Deadeye, Slayer, Vanguard) and "occupations" for lack of a better word (Cavalier, Marksman, Scout, Warlord). I like pretty much all of them you've used except the use of 'Knight', because that's the only one that to me has standard fantasy roleplaying essence and story layered on top of the word that does not necessarily apply to the type of warrior the mechanics are geared for. Ask me what a 'Vanguard' is, and I could come up with a generic explanation of what it might represent, and the mechanics of the archetype you give it would certainly exemplify that. Ask me what a 'Scout' is, same thing. 'Swordsman'? Other than the specificity of weapon choice in the name (and that not being a necessity for the kit), same thing.

But with 'Knights'... I always have an idea of what 'Knights' are, how they act, how they become 'Knights', how they are represented in the fantasy... and it's always more than just "guy in platemail and shield, typical Tank". 'Knights' as an identity are more than that, which is why I appreciated it becoming a specific Background, rather than being used as a generic type of warrior. And also why I think 5E chose the word 'Sentinel' as their feat that gave out the "tanking" abilities we've come to know. So me personally? I think I'd like the kit be called something like 'Sentinel' rather than 'Knight', just because there's a story aspect in most worlds to being knighted and becoming a Knight that just aren't tied to this kit. Small nitpick sure, but one that does get to me.

Scout's 'Marked... for Death': For some reason this just doesn't really work for me as an ability for this specific kit. Being able to grant Advantage to every other ally is a powerful ability, and I don't know if I'm buying the reasoning why a Scout is the one who gets to have it (and how he accomplishes it.) The maneuver talks about "marking" the target, but what exactly does that mean in the context of a ranged weapon user? Does the Scout hit the target with a special "light up" arrow that makes it easier for everyone to see and hit the target a la the Guiding Bolt or Faerie Fire spells? Nope, because the attack the Scout gets to make that he foregoed his Advantage for doesn't even need to hit for the Advantage for everyone else to still work. Is it that the Scout is kind of telling everyone "Hey, I got this guy in my sights! Everyone attack him!"? That kind of sounds more like an ability the Warlord should have, if it's more a verbal tactical indicator that makes it easier for his allies to hit the target.

And then mechanically... due to the ability of gaining Advantage by Hiding and then attacking from hiding, ranged attackers are usually much more likely to get Advantage during combat. So you couple this 3rd level Scout with two levels of Rogue for Cunning Action... you now have a PC that can Hide with a bonus action (needing only Lightly Obscuring terrain due to the Scout's first ability), attack with their Acton with Advantage, and then forego that Advantage to give everyone else Advantage on their first attack against the target for the round. Every round for the entirety of the combat. To get all that without even a really plausible explanation "in-world" of what the Scout is doing to create that opportunity? Not really sure I like it. I think it's just too powerful for what a non-spell can do and how often it can be done.

And then finally... as the 5E Feats are not actually included in the 5E SRD... I dunno if you really want to include them verbatim in your document. Granted, if you don't intend on putting this up on DMsGuild and instead just have it out in the ether of the internet for general consumption, it might not matter. But you might want to take them off anyway just in case?

Great work!

 

[DaedalusX51]

I always enjoy these updates to your Warrior. There's loads of great stuff in it and I think it all works really well for what I always felt the baseline Fighter should have been.

If I was to get nitpicky on a few things (none of which are deal-breakers, but merely just my own personal picadillos on how I like to see things), here are a couple comments:

Cavalier: For what it is intended to do, it works great. My only issue with it is really just a philosophical one, which aligns kind of like what the issue used to be for Rangers and Favored Enemy (but which was fixed in 5E with the Hunter subclass). Mainly that the kit gets its abilities in only one particular way-- on the back of a mount. Which means that for however much of a percentage a DM chooses to run his campaign where being mounted isn't an availability to that player (dungeons, inside castles etc.), this kit is useless. Just like when so much of the older Ranger's special combat stuff used to only work on their Favored Enemies, meaning that any fight that wasn't against their Favored Enemies they were without anything special to do.

5E fixed that for Hunter Rangers by giving them abilities that were flavorfly intended to illustrate a type of favored enemy (say, oversized creatures, or hordes of mid-sized creatures) but which had a much wider range of time they could be used. Not ALL the time, obviously... but enough to know that the ability wasn't going to be shut down on you for 85% or more of the game (whenever the DM chose not to throw a specific type of enemy that you happened to be favored in.)

In many ways, I almost wish there was a way to accomplish that with the Cavalier as well... a trio of abilities that are flavorfly intended to invoke being mounted (and perhaps even be better while mounted due to the natural advantages being mounted gives you in certain abilities)... but which could still actually find use when not (since so much of the game never actually is except in very niche campaigns.) What those kind of abilities are? That I have no idea! LOL! It'd be one of the more difficult kits to design I would imagine (and why it seems most people don't even try.) Abilities that are usable while on the ground and which feel like they are representative of the mounted combatant... and perhaps actually just get better and more powerful when the player actually does get up onto the back of a horse. The hard part being finding that line between not being too overpowerful when mounted, but then also not completely useless when not. It's a big ask!

I would actually love to do that, but I have no idea where to begin with that either. If anyone has an idea that can give me a jump start I would be willing to work on it.

Knight: You straddle the line in the names of your kits between descriptors (Deadeye, Slayer, Vanguard) and "occupations" for lack of a better word (Cavalier, Marksman, Scout, Warlord). I like pretty much all of them you've used except the use of 'Knight', because that's the only one that to me has standard fantasy roleplaying essence and story layered on top of the word that does not necessarily apply to the type of warrior the mechanics are geared for. Ask me what a 'Vanguard' is, and I could come up with a generic explanation of what it might represent, and the mechanics of the archetype you give it would certainly exemplify that. Ask me what a 'Scout' is, same thing. 'Swordsman'? Other than the specificity of weapon choice in the name (and that not being a necessity for the kit), same thing.

But with 'Knights'... I always have an idea of what 'Knights' are, how they act, how they become 'Knights', how they are represented in the fantasy... and it's always more than just "guy in platemail and shield, typical Tank". 'Knights' as an identity are more than that, which is why I appreciated it becoming a specific Background, rather than being used as a generic type of warrior. And also why I think 5E chose the word 'Sentinel' as their feat that gave out the "tanking" abilities we've come to know. So me personally? I think I'd like the kit be called something like 'Sentinel' rather than 'Knight', just because there's a story aspect in most worlds to being knighted and becoming a Knight that just aren't tied to this kit. Small nitpick sure, but one that does get to me.

I can see where you are coming from here. I actually named the Knight, Slayer, and Warlord in homage to 4th Ed Classes that these archetypes represent. I would be willing to change them if other names are more evocative to the concept.

Scout's 'Marked... for Death': For some reason this just doesn't really work for me as an ability for this specific kit. Being able to grant Advantage to every other ally is a powerful ability, and I don't know if I'm buying the reasoning why a Scout is the one who gets to have it (and how he accomplishes it.) The maneuver talks about "marking" the target, but what exactly does that mean in the context of a ranged weapon user? Does the Scout hit the target with a special "light up" arrow that makes it easier for everyone to see and hit the target a la the Guiding Bolt or Faerie Fire spells? Nope, because the attack the Scout gets to make that he foregoed his Advantage for doesn't even need to hit for the Advantage for everyone else to still work. Is it that the Scout is kind of telling everyone "Hey, I got this guy in my sights! Everyone attack him!"? That kind of sounds more like an ability the Warlord should have, if it's more a verbal tactical indicator that makes it easier for his allies to hit the target.

And then mechanically... due to the ability of gaining Advantage by Hiding and then attacking from hiding, ranged attackers are usually much more likely to get Advantage during combat. So you couple this 3rd level Scout with two levels of Rogue for Cunning Action... you now have a PC that can Hide with a bonus action (needing only Lightly Obscuring terrain due to the Scout's first ability), attack with their Acton with Advantage, and then forego that Advantage to give everyone else Advantage on their first attack against the target for the round. Every round for the entirety of the combat. To get all that without even a really plausible explanation "in-world" of what the Scout is doing to create that opportunity? Not really sure I like it. I think it's just too powerful for what a non-spell can do and how often it can be done.

So the scout kit is supposed to represent a character that uses stealth to get a clear picture of the battlefield and set up ambushes. Marked for Death represents you communicating verbally or non verbally a weakness of an enemy. While I think the mechanics match up with my idea, I can see how that isn't quite communicated well enough in the text. As for the overpowered nature of a rogue/scout, I hadn't really considered the interaction. I may have to reword the ability to only work when rolling initiative.

And then finally... as the 5E Feats are not actually included in the 5E SRD... I dunno if you really want to include them verbatim in your document. Granted, if you don't intend on putting this up on DMsGuild and instead just have it out in the ether of the internet for general consumption, it might not matter. But you might want to take them off anyway just in case?

Great work!

Yeah, I am really only doing this for my home game and I added that in for ease of use. I'm not planning on putting this up on the DMsGuild or anything. If I do, I'll probably remove the ones I did not change completely, and add a sidebar with the changes.

I appreciate all of your input and I'll take it into consideration. Thanks!

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would actually love to do that, but I have no idea where to begin with that either. If anyone has an idea that can give me a jump start I would be willing to work on it.

I suspect this is exactly why no one else has tried to do it either! It's always the downfall of the mounted combat archetype... it's a popular theme in stories, but not done often enough in the game itself to make anyone want to use a precious mechanical space to accomplish it. It makes me wonder if these types of mounted combat feats and kits might be better served as merely a set of abilities that can be used / activated by any character who maybe has proficiency in Animal Handling, rather than try and make a Fighter (or any class) archetype that specializes in it? Hard to say.

I can see where you are coming from here. I actually named the Knight, Slayer, and Warlord in homage to 4th Ed Classes that these archetypes represent. I would be willing to change them if other names are more evocative to the concept.

Needless to say, I wasn't crazy about it when WotC used the name 'Knight' in Essentials either. But this is the most minor of nitpicks and I can and (do) easily ignore the name when necessary.

So the scout kit is supposed to represent a character that uses stealth to get a clear picture of the battlefield and set up ambushes. Marked for Death represents you communicating verbally or non verbally a weakness of an enemy. While I think the mechanics match up with my idea, I can see how that isn't quite communicated well enough in the text. As for the overpowered nature of a rogue/scout, I hadn't really considered the interaction. I may have to reword the ability to only work when rolling initiative.

I think that if it was only on the 1st round of combat, used in times when the Scout can set up the ambush and get the rest of the group in position to maximize the attack... that might fix the potential abuse of it. And does help the story for the Scout a bit too. The ability used mainly at the start of a fight when the group is potentially starting from hiding in an ambush situation... the Scout having placed them properly, gotten them set up in the bushes (or wherever) and then when he gives the signal everyone pops up and attacks (either by using their ranged weapons too, or rushing up to make a melee attack.) That's much more easy to visualize and understand why the Scout can give everyone this extra tactical superiority this one time, then in the original format where the Scout was back in the bushes and yet able to give all the melee characters Advantage when they've already been up close and fighting the targets the entire time.

Love it!

 

[MostlyDm]

Seems like they get most/all of the Champion abilities, and also a bunch of maneuvers that appear roughly as good as Battlemaster? Maybe a little worse?

I dunno, on first blush this seems like two things: 1) Incredibly awesome, and 2) Overpowered compared to Champions and Battlemasters.

Maybe I'm missing something though.

Edit: In hindsight my tone could be construed as more hostile than I intended. I do think this looks really cool. Just concerned that it's a significant bump in power for the Fighter, and wondering if there's a mitigating factor I'm missing... just the removal of the combat feats, right? I don't really use those anyway...

Perhaps... my first thought is that it could be balanced by removing the bonus ASIs that Fighters get. But then Eldritch Knights probably need a boost as well.

 

[MostlyDm]

I would actually love to do that, but I have no idea where to begin with that either. If anyone has an idea that can give me a jump start I would be willing to work on it.

For starters, you can remove the mounted requirement from Overwhelming Strikes and Trample.

Instead, have the requirement be that the target be smaller than you or smaller than your mount if you are mounted. That way, on-foot Cavaliers can overwhelm and trample goblins and other small creatures.

Good on foot. Great on a horse. And, humorously, even better on an elephant.

Might be okay for Justice Prevails to just work as-is and be mount-focused. If not, you could open up the ability to redirect a hit from any adjacent ally, and then only allow the reaction attack if they were attacking your mount.

 

[DaedalusX51]

Seems like they get most/all of the Champion abilities, and also a bunch of maneuvers that appear roughly as good as Battlemaster? Maybe a little worse?

I dunno, on first blush this seems like two things: 1) Incredibly awesome, and 2) Overpowered compared to Champions and Battlemasters.

Maybe I'm missing something though.

Yeah I definitely think this archetype is more powerful than the Champion, but I think it may be more comparable to the Battle Master. Either way, in my home game, this replaces both the Champion and the Battle Master, so the only Fighter Archetypes are the Warrior and Eldritch Knight.

 

[DaedalusX51]

For starters, you can remove the mounted requirement from Overwhelming Strikes and Trample.

Instead, have the requirement be that the target be smaller than you or smaller than your mount if you are mounted. That way, on-foot Cavaliers can overwhelm and trample goblins and other small creatures.

Good on foot. Great on a horse. And, humorously, even better on an elephant.

Might be okay for Justice Prevails to just work as-is and be mount-focused. If not, you could open up the ability to redirect a hit from any adjacent ally, and then only allow the reaction attack if they were attacking your mount.

These are all excellent ideas. I love the visual of using all of these maneuvers versus goblins, kobolds, imps, stirges, and the like.

I'll start reworking some of the things that were mentioned here today.

Thanks for the input!

 

[DaedalusX51]

I've updated the Cavalier kit and the Scout's "Marked.. For Death" maneuver.

I do have another question that I have been considering, do you [MENTION=6788973]MostlyDm[/MENTION], @DEFCON 1 feel the second Warrior Kit is too big of a benefit at 15th level? I am considering removing it and changing Martial Adept to give an entire kit.

Thanks for your advice!

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've updated the Cavalier kit and the Scout's "Marked.. For Death" maneuver.

I do have another question that I have been considering, do you [MENTION=6788973]MostlyDm[/MENTION], @DEFCON 1 feel the second Warrior Kit is too big of a benefit at 15th level? I am considering removing it and changing Martial Adept to give an entire kit.

Thanks for your advice!

Not at all. I've actually thought I'd almost want them to have a second one actually sooner.

From the things I've seen in them, they basically replace Battlemaster maneuvers and feats, both of which people pick up as often as they want in various numbers of quantities nowdays as it is (and which I haven't noticed any great issue myself). So I personally don't think having a Fighter getting a second kit to be any massive upgrade, as they just gain versatility with a second kit, not an increase in power per se. Especially considering most of them overlap in terms of the resources needed to use the abilities (Bonus actions, Reactions, and forgoing Advantage).

Thus, they can do a more varied amount of stuff, but not really more often (due to the same action resources spent) nor more powerful (as the maneuvers don't increase in power due to level.) The way I look at it... if a Fighter can take a kit and then get two additional maneuvers via feat... is taking a kit and then another kit several levels later really that much different?