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

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

 

[Ketser]

I really like the first three, but with sharpshooter, not sure about the sharpshooter

Something which i like about all the subclasses, is that their main 3rd level ability is designed to be comparable to the Battlemaster one. They have all have a number of uses that are recovered at short or long rest. The arcane archer is probably the closest mechanically, while others get a single strong ability.

The arcane archer was the subclass i didn't expect, but seems also the most interesting of the bunch. Despite disliking the D&D schools of magic, i like how every arcane archer ability is connected to a specific tradition

The rapid strike ability on the latter three is also a interesting one. It's nice to see fighters getting an ability that interacts with the advantage mechanic. For some reason i find it extremely fitting for fighters.

I like the "tankiness" of the knight, but something gnaws at me when i look its abilities. I don't see any problem with the baked in piece of the sentinel feat, i rather feel that it contributes to the class, without forcing you to take sentinel (although it helps in being a tank).

The Samurai ability is pretty, pretty amazing and powerful, perhaps it's a bit similar to rage. The synergy with its later abilities and the extra attack feature is pretty great. The frontloadiness, might be a problem though.

The sharpshooter is the mehhiest, still probably really great in a game that doesn't use feats.

 

[Istbor]

I like what I have read.

I am a little sad that the Knight didn't also get the Elegant Courtier fluff, but instead a more boring Noble Calvary.

I too like the Rapid Strike idea.

The fighter's 'thing' is extra attacks, so enhancing that more will help set it apart as a beast in combat.

So much for those that thought we would see a fey warrior and an undead hunting warrior.

Edited for typos.

 

[MechaPilot]

The arcane archer was the subclass i didn't expect, but seems also the most interesting of the bunch. Despite disliking the D&D schools of magic, i like how every arcane archer ability is connected to a specific tradition

Arcane archer wasn't a surprise to me. Back in the playtest, one of the earliest themes they gave us was an arcane archer theme. I did expect it to use spell slots though, kind of like a ranged eldritch knight. However, I'm very glad it doesn't. I REALLY dislike spell slots, and I'm glad they kept with the "short or long rest" recharging of the fighter class in general.

 

[Staffan]

Okay, then they spend their move then. Same thing.

But there's nothing else in the game that costs movement without actually being a form of movement. You have standing up from prone (which is a form of movement), and mounting (which is also a form of movement). I'm pretty sure that's intentional, in order to encourage more mobility in combat (unlike 3e, which penalized fighters rather heavily for moving because you had to give up your extra attacks).

 

[Lanliss]

I like these.

The arcane archer just begs to be customized by adding custom Arcane shots. my favorite one of the batch.

The knight seems fun, and at high level solves the problem everyone has with not being able to actually stop a charge.

The samurai seems somewhat interesting, though they do have a big overlap with Barbarian.

Sharpshooter is the most meh, IMO, since it's big thing is copying a feat.

 

[Jester David]

There is no move action in 5e. During your turn you can move, and you can perform an action (and possibly a bonus action), but the move is not part of an action. It's just move.

But it could be phrased as "on a turn where you don't move" or "when you move half you speed or less".

 

[DEFCON 1]

I can understand where they're coming from in making subclasses that basically use feats as subclass features so that those games that don't use feats can have the abilities in the game. Personally though I think it's rather lame. The Fighter specifically has additional ASI/feats slots over other classes in order to take all of these combat feats to give them essentially what we'd be getting with these martial archetypes. But if a DM doesn't want to use feats in their game to allow their players to have these abilities, why are we giving his players an end-around to get these feat abilities anyway?

Granted, I fully understand the implicit 5E mantra that there are multiple ways to skin a cat and they won't not offer some way of doing something even if these are other ways in the game to also get there (thus the Acolyte Fighter, Fighter/Cleric multiclass, and Paladin all as options for a holy warrior)... but it still seems lame that they would waste several Martial Archetypes on things you can already do so long as you can take feats, rather than more original content.

Personally... I also fall into the camp that much prefers the Combat Superiority baseline for the Fighter and most archetypes being built off that chassis. Especially considering many of these abilities are "3 times per Short rest". Why make that specific demarcation when you could just as easily make these abilities into new Maneuvers and then have the player spend Superiority dice to activate them as usual? I just don't see the advantage of giving Fighters ANOTHER set of mechanics for their new archetypes when they already have 3 different archetypes that each have separate mechanics from each other already.

 

[Prakriti]

Knights and archers... Finally, iconic archetypes that people actually want to play.

I was afraid we'd have another week of Necrotic Shampoo Druids and Shadow Peanut Bards.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I just don't see the advantage of giving Fighters ANOTHER set of mechanics for their new archetypes when they already have 3 different archetypes that each have separate mechanics from each other already.

Whereas I greatly prefer these to the superiority die proliferation of the earlier subclasses. I found almost nothing appealing about the scout and the cavalier, and it was precisely because they felt to me like battle master-lite efforts with little creativity put into them. I prefer all four of these.

 

[Xeviat]

I'm loving these a lot more than he Battlemaster. The Battlemaster had no flavor. If superiority dice were a core fighter thing, we never would have had Battlemaster as a subclass. Subclasses should be tasty.

Knight is cool. Samurai is fun. I still want a ki using kensei. Arcane Archer is super cool. I'd really like to try it out. Sharpshooter is interesting, but how it copies things from a few feats is weird. If feats were smaller and more numerous, it would be fine, but now there's feats out there that still have abilities you may want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk