5 Fighter Archetypes

[Connorsrpg]

Okay, so this is like baring your soul a little here. I have had some of these archetypes completed for a while, but have not posted here for a couple of reasons:
1. I understand we have a different play style than most, where the GM is called on to make more calls, and we are willing to push things. (But we are less 'gamey' than a lot of groups).
2. Several of the features refer to other House Rules we have implemented.

But, apart from that, I would really like some feedback on some of these archetypes.

I have considered entering some for En5ider, but given our very slow game, I am unlikely to get these playtested any time soon.

I was hoping that is where you guys come in. If some of you are inspired by other systems and editions of D&D, then you might like some of these archetypes. Each also presents its own playstyle.

So, have a look. Tell me what you think.

http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/5e-fighter

EDIT

Each archetype has been posted on their own thread. If you have feedback specific to one of them, you can find them here:

Blade Dancer: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467851-Fighter-Archetype-Blade-Dancer
Brutal: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467850-Fighter-Archetype-Brutal
Duelist: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467848-Fighter-Archetype-Duelist
Fortune Fighter: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467847-Fighter-Archetype-Fortune-Fighter
Warmain: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467846-Fighter-Archetype-Warmain

 

[Connorsrpg]

116 views and not a single comment. Are they that bad? Have people actually read them, or is it b/c I linked them? Do I have to paste them here? Man, what a tough crowd.

 

[Morrus]

116 views and not a single comment. Are they that bad? Have people actually read them, or is it b/c I linked them? Do I have to paste them here? Man, what a tough crowd.

It's one of those fundamental internet things: every click halves your audience. Plus that might be 116 lurkers.

 

[the Jester]

116 views and not a single comment. Are they that bad? Have people actually read them, or is it b/c I linked them? Do I have to paste them here? Man, what a tough crowd.

It's because you linked them. Honestly, if there's a thread that's a link instead of content, I move on immediately.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There's so much stuff in the individual sub-classes that I can't analyze them all... but there is one thing I noticed in your top-section Fighter write-up that I did want to comment on. Under your Alternate Class Features you gave 'Alternate Saving Throw' where you could trade either STR or CON for DEX or INT. However, the game seems to have been designed and set up where there are three saving throws that are primary and called for most often (CON, DEX, WIS) and three that are secondary and more rare (STR, INT, CHA). And every class I'm pretty sure gets proficiency in one primary and one secondary.

Your alternate feature would allow a fighter to get rid of a secondary save (STR) and pick up another primary (DEX), which seems out of balance with the rest of the classes. If it was me, I'd change it such that you could either swap STR for INT, CON for DEX, or STR & CON for DEX & INT so that the primary/secondary balance is maintained.

 

[Inchoroi]

I don't see these as really requiring a whole new subclass. It would probably be better to just copy over and slightly tweak your maneuvers (since almost all of them have them) and have them just be Battlemaster maneuvers.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

116 views and not a single comment. Are they that bad? Have people actually read them, or is it b/c I linked them? Do I have to paste them here? Man, what a tough crowd.

A lot of it is just... so counter to everything that is D&D, that I don't even know where to start. Just some highlights:

• Death of a Thousand Cuts - allows you to make a decision about how you hit the first target, after knowing whether you hit the second or third target.
• Uncanny Defense - it's just too good, and there's no explanation for why Intelligence increases your AC in a way that isn't already accounted for by Dexterity.
• Alternate Saving Throws - as mentioned, you shouldn't be able to trade out your Strength save for a Dex save.
• Raises and Stunts - violates the basic premise of the whole d20 mechanic, which is that success and failure are binary results.
• Mighty Strike - there's no justification for how your resistance to poison and disease allows you to hit someone harder.

In general, it's just a bunch of mechanics without a reason to exist. These character concepts already have a way that they are represented within the system. For example, the Blade Dancer is not sufficiently distinct from a Ranger. I don't see what any of these archetypes add to the game, except unjustified complexity.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Thanks for the comments people. Obviously not popular

On the Saves: I had considered the 'good save/bad save' situation. I guess I ignored it b/c we aren't power gamers. However, I think I will go with the suggestion for straight swaps: STR for INT or CON for DEX.

Others:

Death of a 1,000 cuts: only applies IF you hit the last target. Otherwise you don't have momentum. It isn't about how really anyway, it is just bleeding. All cuts bleed - these just add damage. In any case - I can understand people not wanting this one at their table.

Uncanny Defense: This has been a bit of a staple in 3E. There is Unarmored Defense using CON and WIS in 5E. (They don't 'explain' how you get the bonus). I figured this fit for a Fighter. Knowledge on defense techniques, how to move I guess as opposed to when and how agile you actually are.

Mighty Strike: Sorry, I don't see CON as just resisting disease and poison. I guess I was going with some sort of robustness, adding more bulk to the hit. It seemed a cool mechanic I have seen elsewhere, but maybe you are right. Perhaps it is silly. Maybe I should switch to reducing damage from an incoming attack instead?

Umm, I am not sure people have read them all, but some of these options we introduced to DECREASE the complexity of the Battle Master. ie provide alternate archetypes that are simpler to run. And, well, I don't see the Battle Master as an archetype at all. It surely just exists for the mechanics and so Wizards could dump a whole lot of options in one place. I am one of those that would rather have seen different duelists, warlords, etc, than lumping all the features in one spot. It is great for flexibility, but it is hardly an archetype.

The others - yep, they were designed for a different playstyle. Like the BM, that was the main intention. They incorporate ideas/mechanics that we enjoy from other games. Maybe the Brutal is not made for many tables, but it does address a style some players like. In fact, I created this one as a request for a player that loved the Stunts system we trialed in our own games, and he loved what I came up with. I fully understand most people that like their games to not stray from the core ignoring a subclass like this.

EDIT: Re D&D = binary. Our group sure laughed at that. Making a statement like that to try and show we don't understand D&D was poor form. So, you don't have Criticals in your game? No degrees of success? So all of those 'hit or fail by 5 or more' in the game , you ignore? All skills are just succeed or fail? Hmm. Not so interesting at all, but play your binary game if you choose. (Return snark, sorry, I have avoided until now (some weeks later)).

Not sure you could build some of these archetypes with what is there (champion & BM) with as much detail, or fun factor, but feel free to do so. Thanks for viewing

 

[Connorsrpg]

Sorry Morrus. I just read the "Read these first threads" at the top of the Forum. I should not have linked. Not sure it is worth posting each here though.

 

[Inchoroi]

Sorry Morrus. I just read the "Read these first threads" at the top of the Forum. I should not have linked. Not sure it is worth posting each here though.

Don't be discouraged; we all started somewhere with homebrew. If you read some of my first homebrew, you'd want to die of embarrassment solely because of how bad it was (really wish I was joking...).

One thing that I think is missed a lot in homebrew is the idea behind 5e. Its a return to a narrative-style gameplay; a thematically consistent sort of game. I've harped on this before in other homebrew threads.

What is the thematic reason for Uncanny Defense (ignoring the fact that its more powerful than it should be to begin with)? For example, monks have something like it because becoming a monk, in the traditional sense, is equated with becoming wise; the stereotypical wuxia ideals, as it were. Barbarians get it because of the unstoppable berserker thematic.

The Blade Dancer, in my opinion, should probably be a monk subclass, using their existing ki mechanic (regenerating it with attacks is generally a bad idea; you don't want that much bookkeeping, that's why every class regenerates everything during either short or long rests) to power a set of maneuvers specific to monk; a lot of the battlemaster maneuvers can be brought over, as well (disarming attack, trip attack, for example). Blade Dancer shares a lot of monk themes--Mobility, Speed--and then adds to them a few more themes--the whirl and twisting dance of blades. This is, in my opinion, again, how 5e functions. Each base class starts with a few general, core themes, and the subclasses stack more specific themes on top of them. In fact, I might make up a Blade Dancer for Monk; its not really necessary, however, because this can be done with battlemaster fighter very easily, as well.

The Brutal is just a Barbarian. In addition, the "raise" mechanic is almost never going to come into effect as it is, because of how bounded accuracy works; you'll rarely, if ever, beat a creature's AC by 5 or more.

The Duelist is literally the Swashbuckler Rogue (it also references a bunch of stuff that doesn't exist in 5e).

The Fortune Fighter is an interesting idea; it could use some clarification in the way of language, however. Also some of the luck maneuvers are pretty OP (growing crits is a really bad idea; florentine for +4 damage, etc).

Warmain is another that has an interesting thematic--however, its really overpowered or nonsensical. Adding your CON mod to every attack; so, at 20th level, that's 8d6 + 40 damage with a greatsword. The latter half of Armor Specialization doesn't make much sense. Armor Penetration isn't a thing in 5e, as well. There's also no "Weapon Groups", beyond Simple and Martial.