5 Fighter Archetypes

I don't have a whole lot of useful input other than...
1: ignore the dickish responses to your ideas.
2: I would probably do as the above poster suggested and place your ideas into subclasses of established classes.

My only comment is that I don't see why someone who's unfettered would have shield proficiency. Shields are awkward, bulky, and allows the fighter to top off his AC at 22 instead of 20 for plate armor + shield. On top of having no penalties to stealth, checks, movement rate, costs, weight, having better AC in no armor than a guy fully decked out doesn't sit right with me. For barbarians and monks it works, but fighters are already plenty good in 5th edition, and you could always multiclass to get those. Imagine how much wizards and Int casters are going to want to take a 1 level dip in fighter for this. It's no doubt that virtually every caster should have this. Good sign it's overpowered.

For balance sake, if you allow AC = dec + int, which allows max 20 AC and very easily achieved given the number of feats fighters get, I would simply remove shield proficiency, not just armor proficiency. Or make the shield proficiency not work at the same time as Uncanny Defense. I just don't picture that many warriors running around in silks or pirate outfits and slugging around a big bulky shield. It goes against the "unfettered" aspect. He should have his sword, or whatever weapons, and that's it. Maybe a belt pouch.

Monks don't get shield proficiency either. Barbarians do, but they have three stats to worry about and nowhere near the amount of proficiency boosts that fighters do. Barbarians should have shield proficiency, unfettered should not.

An unfettered would start off the game with probably a minimum of 16 AC without a shield (15+1, 15+1), then go up from there, with 0 gp spent on armor which costs 50gp for chainmail (16 AC). 750 for splint, AC 17, and 6000 for plate, which a fighter could have for free by level 6. Since they're likely going Dex, I see them more likely to have light weapons in each hand, so Dual Wielder might be a good choice at level 4, or level 1 for a variant human.

I just don't think it's balanced with the base fighter to give them shield proficiency, in game terms. But in flavor it's also out of place too.

Homebrew stuff I tend to stay away from for this reason, but I do like the flavor and yes I agree there should be a light armored fighter variant introduced sometime. It just needs to be balanced. Dex is already a god stat in D&D. For once, with Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master, str-based characters with heavy armor are actually powerful and not second rate in any way. Possibly too good (polearm is fairly overpowered compared to other feats).

[MENTION=6752135]Inchoroi[/MENTION]

Oh, I'm not embarrassed about my creations. I have been homebrewing for over 20 years, and would find some of my earlier ones embarrassing too. I created each of these for a particular reason, style, player, concept and even yes, b/c I liked a different mechanic. I certainly knew that they would be unpopular with the majority here. I figured there might be the odd player that loved their **13th Age** fighter mechanics for eg and might have found something here to work with.

Perhaps I was a little discouraged from posting here, but I went in knowing what the deal is here. I would not expect these to be welcome in every game, I was just hoping there was someone out there also searching for something like one of these concepts that does not exist in the PHB. And I will say again - the Battle Master to me is not a concept. It is just a bunch of rules to give a fighter choice (which is also cool, but it doesn't gel as a concept - it can be used to create concepts with specific choices).

I REALLY should have pointed out that we use a bunch of House Rules. (Again, silly of me - thinking people would be interested and ask about them, or click on the side bar links to them...again, not well handled by me).

SPECIFICS
Shields. Swashbucklers. Um, didn't their name come from the shields they carried? We have bucklers, the main rules don't. Perhaps I limit to bucklers, but I did not see the need. Almost all archetypes playing off this mechanic encourages 2 weapons or light weapon use anyway.

Uncanny Defense. Of course you 'could' get a high AC early, if you use your resources to do so. Simply buying better armor works for other fighters. If players want to spend all their points in raising INT (as well as all the other stats needed for a good fighter), I am cool with that. Not many raise INT feats go with fighter either, so you would be giving up a lot of options to do so. Furthermore, wizards etc cannot dip into this as it REPLACES heavy armor, which you will not get, unless you start as a fighter (and that has its own issues if you want to be a wizard from there anyway). INT is fine too, if you read the description. I can see it adding to AC.

Subclasses. Um all of these ARE a subclass for fighter. (Other than the Unfettered idea of course), but the page has 5 new subclasses.

Vs Monk. Well, of course you can already do some of these things as a monk. But, as far as I can remember (and read in Oriental Adventures esp 3E) weren't there also good weapon-focused fighters that could pull off these moves? Blade Dancer purposefully shares a lot with the monk, but also dervishes, knife-fighters and wuxia warriors not built around unarmed attacks.

Brutal vs Barbarian. Of course it could step on the toes, but it does NOT have a rage mechanic. You can build a good gladiator using the fighter archetypes in the PHB, but I would not use Barbarian. I am simply providing another way for that to occur as a fighter. We created this subclass for a player that loved out stunt system. Rather than port it over we went with our Critical Charts (which the other players preferred), but the Brutal allows this to still occur in the game. I completely understand bounded accuracy, and know this is a foreign concept to d20 (unfortunately), but: 1. It is not that foreign - look at how skills have worked since their introduction; 2. 'Raises' DO occur in the game quite a bit. There are now a lot of low AC creatures b/c AC is not based on level. (Which to me is awesome). Playing through RotR and fighting a lot of ogres, I know this player would love to have had this mechanic in play.

Inflating Damage. I have not seen a problem with a few damage bonuses here and there. I mean there are criticals in the game. All of these rely on circumstances or spending something. Even the Warmain power (which I am considering changing) seems to have been misread. You can do this ONCE PER TURN, which I am gathering will be pretty insignificant at high levels, rather than over powered. At low levels it is better, but again messing with damage is nowhere near as bad as messing with attack bonuses in 5E. Look at rogue's sneak attack. Warmains and Florentine don't even compare.

Vs Rogue Swashbuckler. But this guy isn't a rogue. The duelist is a fighter. It is for people that want to be able to fight like a swashbuckler face to face. Not sneaking around and backstabbing - and take some punishment themselves.

House Rules. My bad. Yes, these archetypes play further on several house rules we developed. My favourite part about 5E is the encouragement in the books to pave your own way, make your own game, etc. Something we did heavily through all editions, except probably 4E, b/c it was so hard to write for (except in tiny bits). That is what we have done. I forgot to mention that these subclasses reference other House Rules, such as: Weapon Qualities (we have added several, including Defensive, Armor Penetration); Weapon Groups (another I was not that fussed on, but we always liked having weapon groups, so, we brought them back). If you are interested, whilst on the site - everything is linked in the side nav bar... but as it is another click, I guess that will not happen I LOVE taking all the parts I like from several games to build my own. Unashamedly.

Thanks for specific feedback to those that have read my archetypes. I do appreciate people going over these with a lot of scrutiny - I would not have posted on ENWorld otherwise There is a very passionate community here and I have read and posted in many other threads on 5E adaptations. I knew these would not be popular with a fair crew, but hopefully there are some people on here that are looking for completely different options/playstyles/mechanics too I just don't seem to have located them outside my group yet

[MENTION=6791950]cmad1977[/MENTION]
Thanks.

I just wanted to add that I love 5E. As soon as I read the core books I knew it would be much easier to write for and the idea of subclasses is perfect. Unlike 4E where thre was a 'theme' somewhere in the MANY powers, but archetypes rarely evolved as it was just finding the best power, 5E returns to themed choices. I really like how you can write these themes for your game.

Obviously for our game we saw some themes/concepts we thought would suit fighters, so that is where we have gone. If others like the more open 5E-styled Battle Master, go with that. My players are free to as well. If they want more focussed concepts, have a look at these archetypes. The good thing about archetypes is they can be ignored They do not change the core game.

My unfetterred option does. I guess that is why it is drawing a lot of attention. I know it is seen as powerful, but seriously, a fighter has to invest a fair bit to do this. I have since altered it slightly though; removed shields (but mentioned bucklers) and adjusted the saving throw options.

(I probably should also note, we roll our stats in order and you can make one swap. You do not put all stats where you want. So maybe it doesn't appear as powerful from our P.O.V).

So, one of our players had a go at the Brutal Fighter in our game on the weekend. The PC only achieved 3rd level for the last session, but it seemed to play well and suited the player's style. (He was the player I made it for ).

It certainly did not outshine other characters or the other martial types in the group. (Though we did not have another fighter for direct comparisons).

He averaged 2-3 'raises' per fight, and most were used for a minimal +1 damage.

If anything, it may have been a little restrictive? Once, he wished to move an enemy, but could not b/c of the size restriction.

(Maybe he will chime in with thoughts - or other players or the GM. I am a player in this game).

We did decide to reduce the Devastating Strike feature's damage bonuses somewhat, as I have also reduced the time it takes to repair weapon breaks.

Hey,

I found your fighter thread!

There is always a grace period when I introduce house rules and new things for players to mess around with so that I can tweak for balance and they know it. I haven't delved too deeply into the math of it but they didn't seem out of control to me - although I like that you adjusted the Saving Throw substitutions and limited the swashbuckler to the buckler (I like the flavor). When I have some time I'll go through them with my thinking cap on. I just thought they were interesting fighter variants, particularly for folks that want to play a fighter that they can tweak a lot in combat but don't necessarily like the Battlemaster.

Have you had any more playtesting with these new subclasses? I think you mentioned in your weapons thread that you had - I'd love to hear about it.

From the summary of Mike Mearls' interview on the Tome Show:

* Mike's biggest regret is the fighter: the subclasses don't have the identity that the subclasses of other classes have. What's a battlemaster or a champion? They were so involved in the mechanics (for simple and complex fighters), that the names don't mean anything.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...rview-from-GenCon)#.Vb7YS_Oqqko#ixzz3hix4foxm

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Thanks Mike. Seems someone is getting what I am saying. Those two subclasses/rules ideas are not an archetype/concept on their own. My point exactly.

Cool rules ideas, but not concepts. But people have expressed that some of my archetypes are just for the rules... and I argue so are the Champion and Battlemaster. I could not agree more with Mike, except, I think basing some subclasses on a cool mechanic is okay.

I also have concept subclasses if people are willing to delve deeper into the page. And here I was thinking that covering both grounds would be okay

[MENTION=7814]Moorcrys[/MENTION].

Thanks again. We have only really playtested the Brutal. (Unfortunately, we don't play enough I should create more of my school group PCs using these archetypes to see how they go).

The brutal was designed for this player and he loved it. I was a player in this group and did not see his PC overwhelm us. Brutals are great vs lower AC monsters, so their influence on a series of fights will ebb and flow.

We seemed pretty happy with how it went. (Kind of a combo b/w Savage Worlds and AGE stunt system there).

I am still working on the Warmain. I know I have to limit its Mighty Strike feature. I am working on how to do so. Ideas:

1. Simply use once; recouped after short rest.
2. As above but usuable several times before short rest. (I guess like monk ki).
3. Make like a stance with similar to barbarian rage. (So recoup after long rest).

[MENTION=6684370]Ichoroi[/MENTION]. A little late, but some specific replies to your post. Re 'story-based'. Um, this is why I created fighter types to fit concepts - fits the story and fits D&D.

Making a blade dancer a monk is doing so for the similar rules, not for 'story'. The story of this guy is that they DON'T fit the 'story' of the monk. They are fighters as dicussed before the rules sections of the class.

This brutal is anything but a barbarian. Check the intro to each class. This fits the story of a galdiator - far from a raging barbarian brought up in the wilds.

The Warmain

Thanks to those that have actually gotten to this subclass - being the bottom of the page and all. Some people do not seem to gel with the adding CON to damage. I quite like it myself . But it was far too generous in how it was applied.

I have since changed it to work more like a stance (with restrictions). If you were an early contributor to pointing this out, please have another look for me and tell me what you think.

I like the new stance, but if people are still against CON adding to damage, then I have been thinking of an alternate feature that allows them to reduce the damage they take instead. Though, given these guys have some other defensive capabilities, it would be nice to have a punishing feature.