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

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

 

[pirate gonzalez]

Half-Orc Samurai will be interesting. You just can't put them down!

 

[RotGrub]

Then you are doing a very poor job at expressing you opinion. Because that is exactly what it sounds like.

Well, now you understand my opinion. There is no longer a need to make any further assumptions.

 

[Lord Twig]

Honestly I don't really like any of these subclasses, but some are better than others.

Arcane Archer: It's good, except for most of the day you are just an Archer, not an Arcane Archer. A simple fix for me would be a feature that allowed all of the Arcane Archer's arrows to count as magic for overcoming resistance (maybe at 6th level?) and then a feature at 10 that makes all of their arrows +1. Done and done.

Knight: Don't like anything about this subclass. I don't like the marking mechanic in general, and this one seems overly complicated...
- You hit a creature an it is marked.
- It has Disadvantage to attack anyone but you, because you can't defend yourself as well as others? I guess?
- If they ignore the mark and move (even to run away) or attack someone else the knights gets a reaction attack, with Advantage, AND deals an extra +3 to +20 damage. WHAT THE HECK!!!
- You can make the reaction attack even if you have already used your reaction this round, as long as it isn't on the same turn.
- You can only do this 3 times per short rest. Because you run out of reflexes? Or something?
Now lets add in Hold the Line...
- If someone moves at all within 5' of you you can make a reaction attack that does an extra +5 to +10 damage.
- This attack stops them cold. Even the Tarrasque. Or an ancient dragon. Or Zeus. Cause why not?
- Oh, and if he is marked the damage goes up to +15 to +30 damage!
Defender's Blade just adds to the ridiculous.

Samurai: This is a little better. My only problem here is why does he only have a Fighting Spirit 3 times per short rest? Eh. Not going to win this battle though. I have the same problem with the Battle Master's Superiority Dice, and that ship sailed a long time ago. Other than that and Rapid Strike, he's fine. Don't like the name though.

Sharpshooter: Don't like this at all. As a bonus action can ignore cover and add +2 to +12 damage to all attacks for the round. Sounds like power creep. DO. NOT. LIKE. I also don't like removing the penalty for firing in melee. To me it makes the game less fun. How about trying to NOT shoot an arrow in melee? How about that? You are already awesome. You don't need to be awesome all the time.

Rapid Strike: Not horrible, but again seems like power creep. Fighters already get more attacks than any other class in the game, they don't need even more. Plus it totally craps on Two Weapon Fighters (poor guys).

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

-snip-

You went from serious to gleeful really fast there, i'm sure you were just being a delightful little rascal and didn't mean a word the entire time.


I disagree with you on a lot of this, because ultimately the idea is to have mechanics that work reliably, rather than simply at your DM's pleasure to nerf or buff with a questionable sense of balance when a wizard can throw down a fireball and order the DM to start rolling saving throws, or cast feather fall- they don't have to come up with it and play mother may I, they just declare the casting and it happens. Why shouldn't I feel entitled to mechanics that functon? If I wanted to play a game where the DM gets their jollies out of frustrating me, then i'll find a collar, a ball gag and some rope to do it right at least.


I also take issue with the suggestion that variant rules are the solution for this, since you pick subclasses and would never be forced to pick this one, they are variant rules on each other, it's just none of them are given precedence over the others. I think you basically want 5e to provide official versions of everything to your liking and then offering these sort of side show 4e mechanics in these completely optional, unendorsed sidebars. Why does it have to be that way? why not have a list of subclasses, some of which lean more heavily to 3e, 2e, 4e, and so forth- a 4e inspiration is as valid as any other source and we have subclasses that lean heavily on particular things from other editions. It's not like you can't make a non-4e inspired knight with the champion, or the cavalier (Direct 2e bonus points! Kits of old! Wooh!). But the thing missing from the fighter subclasses is the active defense of marking, so I think a class about an armored warrior who protects people is good fodder for it to arrive- it even has a name essentials players already recognize as the defender fighter subclass!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except he's not supposed to "remain more concerned" with the fighter. The enemy has a -2 to hit, representing the fighter's efforts to hinder attacks, and if he attacks someone else, the fighter gets to take advantage of the opening and attack.

This isnt even remotely gamist, its pure simulation. I dont see how this is remotely confusing to people.

That works up until the marked enemy somehow gets away from the fighter (or the fighter attacked from range). Then 'concerned' (or distracted or the like) becomes a more plausible visualization - though still probably not the only one, considering how abstract D&D combat is there's a lot of flexibility in how you describe combat.

The 5e Knight archetype's mark, being non-functional against fear-immune targets, can quite easily be visualized as involving 'concern'/fear/caution on the part of the marked enemy. If anything, it's arguably 'unrealistic' in the melee case, since an enemy that was putting any effort into defending itself at all should logically see its general offense degraded by an aggressive adversary (though that aggressive posture might make him more vulnerable, in turn) - one that wasn't putting any effort at all towards defense (and thus wouldn't ever see it's offense degraded by an aggressive attacker) would logically be subject to far more/more-effective attacks/round than even Extra Attack + an OA every turn would model.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

uh yeah, cause "reasons"

Indeed. Just like the aforementioned help action for example.

This response fails to address all the situations I mentioned. For example, Spells that dominate the mind can change a targets mental state instantly, and yet they don't remove a mark.

Unless they are designed to change those specific parts of the target's mental state that deal with whether the target would be a little scared of the knight. Those spells do.

And if we take your physical explanation seriously, what happens when a portcullis drops between the knight and the target?

Then the target will stop freaking out and worrying about about the knight and restore their mental equilibrium. - Probably within the next . . . six seconds or so.

We can talk all day long about exceptions and how DMs will or won't rule on them, but the more you describe how it works the more problems and exceptions it creates. Of course, at that point, you'll probably advise we just stop thinking too much about it "cause reasons".

You can describe it however you wish that the DM allows: just like most other mechanical systems can be narratively portrayed.
And you can indeed find specific situations where a lot of D&D's mechanics break down if you push them hard enough.

Explanation for Fireball = magic, but for Marking? yeah.... I have a hand full of narrative straws, lets see if you run out.

Mechanics of fireball: as the spell description describes. Narrative of casting fireball? At DM's permission it can be anything that fits with the mechanics of the spell description.
Is that what you mean by "mechanics-first, narrative-later (if at all"?

So names and flavour are now independent of mechanics? .. you just proved my entire point. That's the 4e motto. That design doesn't sit well with many and it's one of the reasons people didn't like 4e.

As I recall, 4e had names and flavour text with pretty much every ability. If you want real independence of flavour from mechanics, you need to go back to earlier editions where reskinning mechanics to fit different concepts was much more prevalent.

Yes, IMO (notice the capital letters).

Now you're telling me that I'm not saying what I'm saying.. funny. If my last statement didn't work for you I can say it again, "I am pointing that these UA sub classes are failing to consider other styles of play"

OK. Perhaps more explanation is necessary. Which styles of play are not being considered?
You've got stuff for both melee and ranged. You've got spellcasters and non-spellcasters. You've got fine-out-of-the-box things and things that I'm sure the optimisers can have a field day with. You've got something for people who liked the 4e marking mechanic, and everything else for people who didn't.

 

[Ancalagon]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread yet (I'm sorry, I'm out of country with iffy wifi) but my initial impressions are.

Knight: The current melee tanks aren't sticky enough. This is the "answer"?
Arcane archer: I like it in a featless game (I think the feats make archers too potent). Could be a decent "alt ranger" too.
Sharpshooter: well so much about a featless game then! nope for my game
Samurai: I like it a lot, but then I look at the barbarian and I have misgivings. It seems to be stepping on its toes a lot.

 

[Lord Twig]

What about this idea? "If the player can do it, so can the DM."

So yeah. Let me know how awesome the Knight and Sharpshooter subclasses are when your wizard or cleric has been marked by a 12th level Knight with the Mage Slayer feat while your group is getting peppered with arrows from the 12th level Sharpshooter with the Sharpshooter feat (~sigh~) that is doing 3 attacks for 1d8+23 damage per hit. Enjoy!

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Marking makes more sense if you think of it as anger rather than fear (but 5e doesn't have an enraged condition so fear is the proxy). Think of pretty much any movie where dueling happens. The arrogant guy gets a cut below the cheek (no real damage, not blinded, not going to bleed out from that, just humiliation) and gets mad and obsessed with the other guy who scarred him. It also happens pretty often in sports movies, where the arrogant boxer gets caught with a lucky punch and looses it. While both of these examples involve unarmored combat (suggesting that maybe this would have been more appropriate as an ability for a rogue than a fighter), it also shows up in movies about knights where one guy slaps the other one with his glove, and honor requires the slapped guy to focus on the slapper.

 

[Lord Twig]

Marking makes more sense if you think of it as anger rather than fear (but 5e doesn't have an enraged condition so fear is the proxy). Think of pretty much any movie where dueling happens. The arrogant guy gets a cut below the cheek (no real damage, not blinded, not going to bleed out from that, just humiliation) and gets mad and obsessed with the other guy who scarred him. It also happens pretty often in sports movies, where the arrogant boxer gets caught with a lucky punch and looses it. While both of these examples involve unarmored combat (suggesting that maybe this would have been more appropriate as an ability for a rogue than a fighter), it also shows up in movies about knights where one guy slaps the other one with his glove, and honor requires the slapped guy to focus on the slapper.

My problem with this is that it is something that a DM should decide through role-playing. It shouldn't be forced on his NPCs because the player has a mechanic that says he must become enraged (or whatever).

Edit: And again you are looking at it from a player using it on the BBEG. What happens if the BBEG uses it on a player? Do I tell the player, "Nope, I don't care that your character is always calm. My guy made him angry. No saving throw."