5 Fighter Archetypes

[transcendantviewer]

They seem far from perfect, but they get the job done. The only thing I don't agree with is how they require specialized rules for their use. If something is complex enough to warrant more than 4 or 5 sentences of description, the feature should be the primary focus of the subclass, and even then, shouldn't need specially written rules interactions or anything like that to work. Secondly, if something already does what you're designing, use it for inspiration, but keep them different. You mentioned having homebrewed for many years, but the past doesn't reflect upon 5e as much as you'd think. You could have made miraculous and balanced homebrew for 3.5 and 3e, but that doesn't mean it'll port to 5e. You could have been a wiz at understanding the rules interactions and network of power from 4e, but that doesn't mean it applies to 5e. I'm not trying to sound condescending or lecture you, this is just general advice to hopefully help you down your path.

 

[Connorsrpg]

To not sound condescending perhaps you could provide some specific feedback. I have written a lot for 5E. Favourite system to write for so far

What do you mean by the 4-5 sentences comment? Are you saying the Battlemaster's superiority dice mechanic is a problem?

By specialty rules, do mean the ones explained at the start of each archetype, or the small house rules we have hidden throughout, such as reference to weapons with the 'defensive' property? (If the small House Rules, obvioulsy they would need rewording, adjusting or removal for a core game - but as 5E actively encourages house rules again, we have gone with our favourites - weapon groups, weapon qualities, etc. If this is the prob, I am happy to explain any of them or point you to where we have written about them... but again, I need specific fb for that).

Not sure you have read any of this thread, but some of these subclasses (where the rules are specifically called out) were done FOR the rules (just like the PHB fighter 'archetypes'). ie to play off a cool mechanic.

The whole concept vs mechanic thing is being played out right now in this thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?466352-Thoughts-on-Mearls-Comments-on-Fighter-Subclasses-Lacking-Identity/page5 following Mike Mearl's comments.

Anyway, so what are the specific problems these have fitting in to the 5E rules? That is what I am here for. General advice pointing out that each edition of D&D is different to design for I am kind of aware of I have created some fighter ideas, some based off other games, some off my ideas, some off standard archetypes and have tried them out. I would appreciate some useful feedback, oh, and has anyone given them a go?

As stated, unfortunately, we have only really had the brutal in action. I am keen to see how the others go, but that takes time of course

 

[transcendantviewer]

I only really skimmed the archetypes in your post, but it felt like they had a lot of text to them, more-so than even the Eldritch Knight, which is a spellcaster. The Battle Master needed a lot of space for text because of all its maneuvers, so the features that grant greater options are pretty much fine, I just think they're a bit unnecessary.

 

[transcendantviewer]

Also, without the complexity, wouldn't these archetypes function better as just combat styles?

 

[Moorcrys]

To not sound condescending perhaps you could provide some specific feedback. I have written a lot for 5E. Favourite system to write for so far

What do you mean by the 4-5 sentences comment? Are you saying the Battlemaster's superiority dice mechanic is a problem?

By specialty rules, do mean the ones explained at the start of each archetype, or the small house rules we have hidden throughout, such as reference to weapons with the 'defensive' property? (If the small House Rules, obvioulsy they would need rewording, adjusting or removal for a core game - but as 5E actively encourages house rules again, we have gone with our favourites - weapon groups, weapon qualities, etc. If this is the prob, I am happy to explain any of them or point you to where we have written about them... but again, I need specific fb for that).

Not sure you have read any of this thread, but some of these subclasses (where the rules are specifically called out) were done FOR the rules (just like the PHB fighter 'archetypes'). ie to play off a cool mechanic.

The whole concept vs mechanic thing is being played out right now in this thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?466352-Thoughts-on-Mearls-Comments-on-Fighter-Subclasses-Lacking-Identity/page5 following Mike Mearl's comments.

Anyway, so what are the specific problems these have fitting in to the 5E rules? That is what I am here for. General advice pointing out that each edition of D&D is different to design for I am kind of aware of I have created some fighter ideas, some based off other games, some off my ideas, some off standard archetypes and have tried them out. I would appreciate some useful feedback, oh, and has anyone given them a go?

As stated, unfortunately, we have only really had the brutal in action. I am keen to see how the others go, but that takes time of course

I think you're getting a lot of philosophical feedback about what folks think 5e 'is' and 'should be' in general (in some people's minds) and very little on the mechanics and balance. Aside from the saving throw switch which you implemented.

I'm traveling right now and don't have time to go in-depth, but I will when I get a break and can go through them. In general, however, I really like 'em - they each have a niche and a follow-able mechanic behind them. I never got lost with the text. I can't speak yet for balance or anything that jumped out at me as overpowered and incidentally I have players just like you - those that will say 'I want to play a fighter who's a lightly armored duelist and not a skulking sneak attacking rogue or mystical monk - I want a fighter that does it.' I feel like these classes are addressing those players in an interesting way.

More later.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=6762655]transcendantviewer[/MENTION]. Thanks for responding. But is there anywhere in particular to cut text? Not sure you noticed, but 4 of these 'archetypes' are written just like the Battlemaster. They have an attached mechanic (that needs explaining) and then a list of maneuvers to choose from. Hence, they are similar in length to the BM. (I realise it is a lot of words on one page, but maybe read one at a time and deal with in isolation. I am sure you will find them easier to compare to BM for eg then).

They are purposefully built around a new mechanic, but I hope each has enough attached flavour or place in the world to distinguish them from each other. (Not from the BM, as it covers ALL ground).

RE Combat Styles. I am still not sure it is understood why I built these fighters. Just like the BM and Champion, it was to play off and try new mechanics. It just so happens, I added some flavour text to them. But, if you think these could be squished into a Fighting Style, I would love to see an example of what you mean.

I actually built these with the existing FS in mind. Some of my archetypes are clearly flavoured towards a narrower list of FS, but all are still possible. For eg: the Duelist is clearly going to consider taking the Dueling FS (and maybe that is the one you see is just being a FS), but the archetype works well with others too (namely Two-Weapon FIghting), and if you inc the Mariner style. So each makes for very interesting combos.

So, the first 4 may be alternatives for the Battlemaster. You can build something like them with the BM and be happy. BUT, if you want to try a new mechanic (and one skewed a little towards the kind of fighter you represent), then maybe give one of these a go.

If you want a Simple fighter, in the vein of the Champion, then scroll down to the bottom of the page for the Warmain. I guess he is your 'easy to play' Knight/Tank/Juggernaught etc.

As people are stating on the other thread, it is an odd thing with fighter archetypes actually being divided by complexity. Do you create a complicated knight using the BM, or a simple one using a Champion. (I have simply offered an alternative simple build using warmain).

But again, specific feedback welcome.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=7814]Moorcrys[/MENTION]. Thanks for your comments and understanding. Your last couple of lines is what I was trying to address. Well put.

Looking forward to a more studied analysis, but again, remember, some features play off our other House Rules. Feel free to ask and I will explain, or point you in right direction.

After another read of the archetypes, I was a little worried about the 'stun' attacks. I know it apparently became a problem on a lot of 4E games. Has anyone had trouble with 5E, especially the monk's 5th level feature?

Stun appears twice in my archetypes: both do not offer saves; both last until the start of 'your' next turn only. I feel they are okay (but others may not think so) b/c:

Brutal. Only get this at 15th level AND must get 2 'raises' to do so. For that there are many other options that may be chosen instead anyway.

Fortune Fighter. Only occurs on a 16+ on an opportunity attack. So even if you choose this feature, it is not like you would get to use it a lot.

 

[transcendantviewer]

I did read through some of the Fortune Fighter's features, and tying specific effects to die rolls is an easy way to overcomplicate the game. It might be interesting to give them features similar to the Luck Feats from 3.5. I did like that you gave them Luck Points, but I don't think you should just give them the Lucky Feat. Instead, give them the 2 Luck Points and grant them options to do with them that someone that has the Lucky Feat wouldn't normally have access to. That way, they don't feel like they're shaming a feat or making another character feel like they wasted a feat slot and the feat doesn't feel less appreciated.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=6762655]transcendantviewer[/MENTION]
Thanks for reading. That mechanic is very different indeed and requires a totally different play style - that is why I pointed that out in the description. Specifically, it is for those that have played a **13th Age** fighter and liked the idea of it. Yes, it is a little complex, but it is meant to be. (Like the BM).

Wouldn't adding extra 'luck' features (when there is already a mechanic for luck) be complicating things more? I am happy with just giving them the feat (with extra luck points if they already had it), but I am interested to hear more. Any particular ideas in place of 'shaming the feat'.

I dislike having 2 means for mechanic. There is already the halfling lucky feature and the luck feat (which to me should have worked together more). If I add another, what's to become of a lucky halfling fortune fighter? I do like the sound of something new though. I liked the idea of being able to use them on foes when they target you, but that is already part of the Luck Feat.

 

[transcendantviewer]

Well, give them something similar to the Battle Master's Superiority Dice. Like when they strike an opponent with a melee or ranged weapon attack, they can expend a luck point to impose a penalty on the target's next check (Based upon the Luck ability used). Like one could impose a -1d6 penalty on the target's next Strength (Athletics) check as you slice into a muscle and they can't lift or hold their footing as well as a bit ago. Like Combat Superiority Dice, these will deal extra damage, but unlike the Superiority Dice, they'll impose more devastating effects. They won't get stronger, but instead, you'll gain more luck points as you gain archetype features. I actually built an archetype like this a while ago, but it used magical hexes to do the trick. I later turned it into a Warlock archetype.