Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Fighter: Samurai, Sharpshooter, Arcane Archer & Knight

I'm getting, like, unhealthy amounts of mad, clicking on that broken link.

 

[BrynnMawr347]

I found the Arcane Archer's lack of spellcasting odd, considering how previous incarnations have had their own spells. I guess they wouldn't want another archetype that also casts arcane spells. I'm otherwise happy with the archetypes, and I enjoy the others in the article also. I didn't really see the point of the samurai and the knight being specific classes in editions where they aren't fighter or paladin subclasses.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Or even if it isn't that severe, the loss of player agency without even the chance of a save is a terrible rule!
First, the knight marks my character. I don't even know what that means, but it appears to have something to do with fear, and there is no save. Now on my turn I can't do anything except attack the guy that marked me unless I want to take a huge amount of damage. And running away isn't an option, I would just take even more damage! Is that fun? No. Bad rule.
These all allow a save. And damage is fine, but usually you at least have some kind of defense against it.
Again, Scrying allows a save. So does meteor swarm. A Marilith can be fought in the traditional manner. At no point is my agency taken away from me. Plus this is a pretty contrived scenario. Whereas having a Sharpshooter with Sharpshooter sniper (presumably of the same level as the party) attack the party in an ambush is a pretty straightforward occurrence.

Just because something requires a save doesn’t mean the party is going to be able to make it. The meteor swarm example, while sleeping you are unconscious, while unconscious you automatically fail strength and dex saving throws. You take full damage, unless rogue (because evasion). The scry requires a save, but is the fighter really going to make a DC 28 wisdom save (Wizard, 18-20 level, 8+5 int+6 prof+5 knows the target well+4 has a possession of the target)?

But that isn’t the point, you said that if you don’t like an ability or effect if it could potentially happen to your player, then it is a bad ability. I want none of those things to happen to me. You didn’t say “If it could potentially happen, and doesn’t involve a saving throw, which suddenly makes it better”.

It just seems like an awfully poor way to judge an ability. If you as the DM decide to bring an enemy with marking into a fight, it creates a problem for the players to deal with. They may complain about it, but that doesn’t automatically make them bad.

Finally, how does the Sharpshooter balance against a Champion or Battle Master archer? Or an Arcane Archer in the same UA!?! He does insane damage for 3 full rounds of attacks while the Arcane Archer get's two attacks with a bonus, and only once a round.

Sharpshooter does have some crazy damage, but it takes a while to get ridiculous.

By level 4: it is +4 damage on 3 attacks. AA gets +2d6 (average 7) +spell effect on 2 attacks
Level 5: +4 damage, 6 attacks. AA doesn’t change. By this point over the course of a single day, sharpshooter may edge out AA.
Level 11: +5 damage on 9 potential attacks, this is impressive. By this point they are clearly doing a pile of damage against a single target, so it becomes the odd question of trying to value damage vs the control of the spell arrows, or figuring in a perfect line arrow (Single attack hits 6 targets)

By level 11 a battlemaster can get +5d10+effects on various attacks, less damage unless they roll high, but again, how valuable is pushing or allowing an ally to move without triggering AOs.


Yeah, I think as written a Sharpshooter archer fighter, is probably the highest DPR fighter in the game, especially when they take the sharpshooter feat. They may be a contender for top DPR in the game by level 20. Is this something we need to fix and if it is, how would we create something different that isn’t so powerful but still feels viable? Perhaps a penalty to hitting enemies you did not aim at? One thing as well, I definitely think the AA should get more magic arrows.

If you look back you will notice that I commented on all four subclasses. All had flaws, but the Knight was the worst in my opinion, followed closely by the Sharpshooter. Of course everyone is going to have different opinions, that's fine, but I still have a right to voice my own.

I’m not trying to say people shouldn’t voice their opinions, but most of the past 50-70 posts have only been about 4e marking mechanics and people’s opinions on 4e, and how they either hate it and want it to never appear or how they are excited it is finally being included in the game.

If we accept a single class that allows marking in the game, how does it hold up mechanically? Does it work as a viable character build for mechanical purposes? Does having a fighter whose main abilities work when it isn’t his turn an interesting choice to have?

Not should 4e marking exist, because obviously the developers think it should. And this isn’t 4e marking anyways, it is marking lite.

Sure, you might have a 95% chance to fail, but at least you get a chance to resist, and that is all that most players want. At least that is what myself and my players want. Go ahead and cast a Fear spell! I might fail my save, but at least I got my role.*

But, this is a player ability, and most people are perfectly fine if the monster doesn’t get a chance to prevent their primary features from working.


Actually, let's just bold this so we don't get too distracted

This is a player ability, not a monster ability barring the DM adding it to a monster for effect

 

[Satyrn]

I found the Arcane Archer's lack of spellcasting odd, considering how previous incarnations have had their own spells.

The only spells that 3e's arcane archer had came from the spellcasting prereq. The prestige class itself gave no spellcasting. I think this captures that class quite well, and I like it . . . except for that summon quiver ability which is just pointless. I think it ought to let the archer conjure an arrow at any time (with a somatic component of grabbing it from a quiver) and have every arrow fired be magical.

 

[cbwjm]

3e arcane archer was able to imbue spells into their arrows although I guess this option is included with the various effects they can add to their arrow.

I do feel they need more arrows as a base as they level. Getting another after a minute can be useful, but I would want them to have at least 4 by level 20.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[BrynnMawr347]

The only spells that 3e's arcane archer had came from the spellcasting prereq. The prestige class itself gave no spellcasting. I think this captures that class quite well, and I like it . . . except for that summon quiver ability which is just pointless. I think it ought to let the archer conjure an arrow at any time (with a somatic component of grabbing it from a quiver) and have every arrow fired be magical.

I had thought the 4e version had spells. It had been a while since I looked at the 3/3.5e prestige class, but I thought they still had some spells themselves. I guess it was because the ranger version does have spells.

 

[cbwjm]

I had thought the 4e version had spells. It had been a while since I looked at the 3/3.5e prestige class, but I thought they still had some spells themselves. I guess it was because the ranger version does have spells.

Did 4e have an arcane archer? I only remember a dragon article where they created oneach using bard as a base class and multiclassing to pick up some ranger attack powers.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

Funny enough, the 3e arcane archer was the catalyst in turning me away from 3e. I was still pretty new to 3e (preferring to stick with AD&D), and I really wanted to create an arcane archer because the theme sounded really cool. Then cue the several comments I got about how X, Y, and Z were all better and more effective builds with the same theme and the arcane archer was crap. If you need system mastery and/or optimization to play a game, especially at the cost of what I wanted to play? Then forget it. It was a turn off for me. Maybe that's why I really like this version of the arcane archer, and want to play one. To make up for the last time.

 

[Lord Twig]

Actually, let's just bold this so we don't get too distracted

This is a player ability, not a monster ability barring the DM adding it to a monster for effect

This is a huge problem for me. In my games Player Characters don't have a huge PC stamped on their forehead. They don't get powers or abilities that no one else in the world gets. If a PC can use a marking mechanic, then so can their enemies.

So no, they are not player abilities they are new abilities that are being added to the game that can be used by a player or the DM.

 

[cbwjm]

Funny enough, the 3e arcane archer was the catalyst in turning me away from 3e. I was still pretty new to 3e (preferring to stick with AD&D), and I really wanted to create an arcane archer because the theme sounded really cool. Then cue the several comments I got about how X, Y, and Z were all better and more effective builds with the same theme and the arcane archer was crap. If you need system mastery and/or optimization to play a game, especially at the cost of what I wanted to play? Then forget it. It was a turn off for me. Maybe that's why I really like this version of the arcane archer, and want to play one. To make up for the last time.

I often hear about situations like yours that makes me happy that I have a good group. System mastery or optimisation isn't really a consideration for us, we all just play for fun.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

I often hear about situations like yours that makes me happy that I have a good group. System mastery or optimisation isn't really a consideration for us, we all just play for fun.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

OH, I know it isn't really a fault of 3e, but more of all the people who played 3e that I was exposed to at the time. But you know what they say about 1st impressions....


Funny enough, it's also the reason I don't play RIFTS. I was playing a werewolf PC and it seemed super awesome cool and I was all into it, and then I was was a bit surprised that I'd get a 1d4 MDC weapon at first level (isn't MDC for high level PCs, I thought?). Then I met the group. Glitter boys, juicers, etc. I might as well have been playing a cheerleader.