Ranger Rehash
[MENTION=40552]Quartz[/MENTION] : You can take on "whatever type of dragon" as applies to your adventures/story/game you want...at 9th and/or 16th level. At 10th, via the Applied Expertise feature of your Mounted Superiority, you could now gain Mounted Expert benefits for any dragon ridden. A dragon-rider figure was, actually, the driving inspiration for the Applied Expertise feature.
[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] : For the Last Stand feature, instead of making up/adding the negative HP threshold, would it be unbalancing if we just borrowed from the Half-Orc and said, as long as a challenged foe is undefeated, when the cavalier would drop to 0 or less HP they, instead, go to 1?
Making it perpetual effectively makes the cavalier unkillable while their target lives...but maybe that is too powerful?
I think having them be able to do this only once, though, is underpowered for what is essentially supposed to be the cavalier's capstone at 18th level.
[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] : For the Last Stand feature, instead of making up/adding the negative HP threshold, would it be unbalancing if we just borrowed from the Half-Orc and said, as long as a challenged foe is undefeated, when the cavalier would drop to 0 or less HP they, instead, go to 1?
Making it perpetual effectively makes the cavalier unkillable while their target lives...but maybe that is too powerful?
I think having them be able to do this only once, though, is underpowered for what is essentially supposed to be the cavalier's capstone at 18th level.
Quickleaf
Legend
[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] That could work, though it may be over-powered. Essentially, while using Last Stand the paladin changes the enemy's tactics regarding him from "reduce to 0 HP" > "break their challenge." Which would require locking down the paladin (or giving them something to burn actions on like throwing villagers off a bridge) so they didn't attack that turn.
I had thought about limiting this with concentration, but that seems like it would require too many CON checks from a front-line guy. And the paladin doesn't get CON saves by default. Maybe too punitive.
Another option for toning down the power might be a mechanic emphasizing the desperate feel of using Last Stand, such as suffering Exhaustion.
Another option is requiring them to defeat their Challenged foe in order for Last Stand to recharge. So they fight a Death Knight who they Challenge, and during the hairy fight the paladin invokes his Last Stand. However, during the fight the Death Knight escapes. The paladin now cannot use Last Stand again until the Death Knight is defeated. Hrm. But that brings up questions of what "defeat" means and could strand the paladin without Last Stand given certain plot devices.
I had thought about limiting this with concentration, but that seems like it would require too many CON checks from a front-line guy. And the paladin doesn't get CON saves by default. Maybe too punitive.
Another option for toning down the power might be a mechanic emphasizing the desperate feel of using Last Stand, such as suffering Exhaustion.
Another option is requiring them to defeat their Challenged foe in order for Last Stand to recharge. So they fight a Death Knight who they Challenge, and during the hairy fight the paladin invokes his Last Stand. However, during the fight the Death Knight escapes. The paladin now cannot use Last Stand again until the Death Knight is defeated. Hrm. But that brings up questions of what "defeat" means and could strand the paladin without Last Stand given certain plot devices.
Really like the exhaustion idea. In fact, I am thinking, that a level of exhaustion for each time the cavalier has to use this "Last Stand" ability to keep their HP "1"...a) makes it usable more than once but not unlimited, b) solidifies the flavor that you could die from it, a literal "last stand". I like that...and, if it needs a "c)", still something unique that other classes can't do.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Last edited:
RE: the mounted expert combat bonus, I didn't realize the mounted combat rules already granted advantage for some attacks...advantage to all attacks from horseback doesn't seem OP to me...but a quick perusal of the mounting/dismounting rules gave me this little gem to use instead...
Quick Mount: You may mount or dismount with fluid ease. You can mount your chosen creature with only 5’ movement (instead of using 1/2 your full movement as the normal rules) and you do not suffer the prone condition if you fall from your mount.
Quick Mount: You may mount or dismount with fluid ease. You can mount your chosen creature with only 5’ movement (instead of using 1/2 your full movement as the normal rules) and you do not suffer the prone condition if you fall from your mount.
Couple of thoughts/answers to more stuff here...
Muchos gracias! Happy to hear it.
Right. For my mind (and I suppose you would categorize this under, as you say, "Design Goals"), to justify the "cavalier" as a mounted warrior archetype, they have to/should cover more than "knight in shining armor" and need to, legitimately, cover several "good on a horse/mount warrior" types. With the Background framework of 5e (which I often forget to consider and, unlike MCing or feats, is NOT optional!), I feel leaving the aristocratic story elements out of the class features works perfectly. The material [in the cavalier] is there for you to PLAY it in that direction if that is the character you want...but you don't HAVE to/can play other mounted warriors of other -not aristocrat/noble/"chivalric knight-in-title"- types.
I was afraid people would think this, but was unaware of any other class/subclass that gets to ADD an ability prof./save to their repertoire. And my "old school" spidey senses always tingles when you start adding/giving "more stuff" without removing/balancing [within the class/subclass] that be receiving "less" of something else...and an ability swap is, was to my mind, a 1:1 no-brainer.
That's what I was thinking. But, if you don't think it would be OPed, easily abusable, or set a dangerous precedent for other character/class creations, I'm not against adding it as a third save prof. It's the flavor I'm going for.
Perhaps a bit...but then, most of the paladin's wheelhouse is in the cavalier's...just without magic/divine power. So, in that way, as a mundane feature that is left to the player's control - the cavalier can choose to be inspiring/help his companions or not/be selfish, as opposed to the "always on aura" of a paladin...that's a significant enough difference, in my wheelhouse
It is and does. In my ranger rewrite, I gave them a later feature that up'ed the CR to 1, I think. I checked, and know that 1/2 gets them the warhorse (which is obviously the primary choice/most popular archetype), but it would deny smaller folks creatures like Tigers or Lions or Dire Wolves. This does, however, bring up the point that I don't believe I specified (in thinking of taking on the additional kinds of mounts and their ability...Griffons and Pegusi are CR 2....a unicorn is CR 5....dragons, of course, can go much higher. So, starting at CR 1/2 and then, at the later mount/bond powers thing, needs to be up'd to "any CR" and any size? Is that a bit OPed?
I mean, common sense/storyline-speaking there's no reason a halfling cavalier couldn't climb up on a large or huge creature and "ride it"...but I have a little trouble with realistically [as far as fantasy story "realism" goes] control it and gain the mounted benefits from/with it.
But, for simplicity's sake, I think I'll just have to accept/turn a blind eye to the ridiculousness of some possibilities and let tables play as they play.
Agreed. Needs another once over.
I think so. Is that redundant...or OPed...or incidental/underPed?
That's the idea. Maybe a warhorse, hippcomapus, and bronze dragon.
THanks. I'm pretty much with you on this. I, personally, am no great fan of the "forced movement" stuff of the past, and I know/notice that it is missing from most fighter abilities. The battlemaster maneuvers that can effect/force movement all require the spending of a superiority dice and then allows a save (usually to Strength).
I think the save let's it, at least not be auto...but it does feel/sound a bit like "magic" and that I definitely don't want. Unfortunately, I looked at a few other games/systems that had a "knightly challenge" mechanic and this was pretty much the only choice...
I'm really just stymied on how else to do it...unless we model it directly after a BM maneuver and do, like, having to "spend" something before the save...I really just don't know...
Ummm...I was a thinking it would be "up to" 50/50...as the player wants (so 60/40 or 80/20 or whatever, if the mount isn't very injured/doesn't need the full 50. Doesn't the fighter gets 100% + 50% for the mount seem overpowered? You're essentially making all of their HD 50% more/higher than any other characters.
I am indeed. If we can say the Paladin is [or was, up to now], essentially, the "Wisdom Fighter" (though yes, I know they were required to have high Cha's from their creation, but their divine magic/clerical abilities put a definite flavor emphasis on Wisdom), the Barbarian is the "Constitution Fighter", and the Ranger [arguably] is the "Intelligence or Dexterity Fighter", then the Cavalier ...to my mind...has always been the "Charisma Fighter." In 5e terms, that would translate to Champion = the Str. subclass, BM = the Wis. subclass, EK = the Int. subclass...so Cav. can be the Cha. subclass.
Had some time to look this over tonight, and I like it! I like it a lot
Muchos gracias! Happy to hear it.
Right. For my mind (and I suppose you would categorize this under, as you say, "Design Goals"), to justify the "cavalier" as a mounted warrior archetype, they have to/should cover more than "knight in shining armor" and need to, legitimately, cover several "good on a horse/mount warrior" types. With the Background framework of 5e (which I often forget to consider and, unlike MCing or feats, is NOT optional!), I feel leaving the aristocratic story elements out of the class features works perfectly. The material [in the cavalier] is there for you to PLAY it in that direction if that is the character you want...but you don't HAVE to/can play other mounted warriors of other -not aristocrat/noble/"chivalric knight-in-title"- types.
I was afraid people would think this, but was unaware of any other class/subclass that gets to ADD an ability prof./save to their repertoire. And my "old school" spidey senses always tingles when you start adding/giving "more stuff" without removing/balancing [within the class/subclass] that be receiving "less" of something else...and an ability swap is, was to my mind, a 1:1 no-brainer.
That's what I was thinking. But, if you don't think it would be OPed, easily abusable, or set a dangerous precedent for other character/class creations, I'm not against adding it as a third save prof. It's the flavor I'm going for.
Perhaps a bit...but then, most of the paladin's wheelhouse is in the cavalier's...just without magic/divine power. So, in that way, as a mundane feature that is left to the player's control - the cavalier can choose to be inspiring/help his companions or not/be selfish, as opposed to the "always on aura" of a paladin...that's a significant enough difference, in my wheelhouse
It is and does. In my ranger rewrite, I gave them a later feature that up'ed the CR to 1, I think. I checked, and know that 1/2 gets them the warhorse (which is obviously the primary choice/most popular archetype), but it would deny smaller folks creatures like Tigers or Lions or Dire Wolves. This does, however, bring up the point that I don't believe I specified (in thinking of taking on the additional kinds of mounts and their ability...Griffons and Pegusi are CR 2....a unicorn is CR 5....dragons, of course, can go much higher. So, starting at CR 1/2 and then, at the later mount/bond powers thing, needs to be up'd to "any CR" and any size? Is that a bit OPed?
I mean, common sense/storyline-speaking there's no reason a halfling cavalier couldn't climb up on a large or huge creature and "ride it"...but I have a little trouble with realistically [as far as fantasy story "realism" goes] control it and gain the mounted benefits from/with it.
But, for simplicity's sake, I think I'll just have to accept/turn a blind eye to the ridiculousness of some possibilities and let tables play as they play.
Agreed. Needs another once over.
I think so. Is that redundant...or OPed...or incidental/underPed?
That's the idea. Maybe a warhorse, hippcomapus, and bronze dragon.
THanks. I'm pretty much with you on this. I, personally, am no great fan of the "forced movement" stuff of the past, and I know/notice that it is missing from most fighter abilities. The battlemaster maneuvers that can effect/force movement all require the spending of a superiority dice and then allows a save (usually to Strength).
I think the save let's it, at least not be auto...but it does feel/sound a bit like "magic" and that I definitely don't want. Unfortunately, I looked at a few other games/systems that had a "knightly challenge" mechanic and this was pretty much the only choice...
I'm really just stymied on how else to do it...unless we model it directly after a BM maneuver and do, like, having to "spend" something before the save...I really just don't know...
Ummm...I was a thinking it would be "up to" 50/50...as the player wants (so 60/40 or 80/20 or whatever, if the mount isn't very injured/doesn't need the full 50. Doesn't the fighter gets 100% + 50% for the mount seem overpowered? You're essentially making all of their HD 50% more/higher than any other characters.
I am indeed. If we can say the Paladin is [or was, up to now], essentially, the "Wisdom Fighter" (though yes, I know they were required to have high Cha's from their creation, but their divine magic/clerical abilities put a definite flavor emphasis on Wisdom), the Barbarian is the "Constitution Fighter", and the Ranger [arguably] is the "Intelligence or Dexterity Fighter", then the Cavalier ...to my mind...has always been the "Charisma Fighter." In 5e terms, that would translate to Champion = the Str. subclass, BM = the Wis. subclass, EK = the Int. subclass...so Cav. can be the Cha. subclass.
In the interest in wrapping up some of these homebrew threads (I'm getting kinda lost/drowning in my own options and subclasses), here's the "final" version of the Ranger.
Any play or testing anyone wants to do, have at it. Any/all feedback with these is most welcome.
Any play or testing anyone wants to do, have at it. Any/all feedback with these is most welcome.
MoutonRustique
Explorer
At first reading, the level 1 "Wilderness Survival" seems like a very, very good dip for... well everyone! when a significant portion of the game happens in cities/urban environment (and I've not been in one where it isn't.)
Advantage on every and all skill checks once proficient seems like the kind of non-brainer thing that should probably be avoided at level 1 - at higher levels the multiclass cost is sufficient disincentive, but as it stands now...
Am I miss-reading something ?
Advantage on every and all skill checks once proficient seems like the kind of non-brainer thing that should probably be avoided at level 1 - at higher levels the multiclass cost is sufficient disincentive, but as it stands now...
Am I miss-reading something ?
You're not misreading anything. You are simply working under the [very common] misconceptions that a) the extent of your experience is equal to anyone's else's experiences in D&D and b) that anything being designed for D&D should be writing to mesh with one's particular personal preferences or experiences.
Things like "the majority of campaigns take place in cities" (because "I've not been in one where it isn't") and "multiclassing or level dipping will be allowed [or even desired] in all 5e games" are both assumptions of such misconceptions.
But you are correct, if you [the general "you"/anyone] are going to corrupt your game with the optional multiclassing rules presented in the PHB and permit or desire optimizing/powergaming/level dipping, then this ability is broken. When you seek to break the rules of the game...they do/will break.
Things like "the majority of campaigns take place in cities" (because "I've not been in one where it isn't") and "multiclassing or level dipping will be allowed [or even desired] in all 5e games" are both assumptions of such misconceptions.
But you are correct, if you [the general "you"/anyone] are going to corrupt your game with the optional multiclassing rules presented in the PHB and permit or desire optimizing/powergaming/level dipping, then this ability is broken. When you seek to break the rules of the game...they do/will break.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
