5 Fighter Archetypes

[Connorsrpg]

Okay, so given Mike Mearls' comments and the dicussion going on elsewhere, hopefully there is more of an understanding regarding creating Fighter 'archetypes' based upon mechanics as opposed to, well archetypes/concepts, I have decided to copy and paste my 5 archetypes in development.

Also, clearly I have learnt something myself. Don't bother linking to your own website. Very few people follow. But THANKS to those that did above. Now you can see my recent versions right here.

They are different colours - I hope that makes it easier to distinguish and flip back to them.

Might not make a lot of sense without reading above posts, but please have a look over and tell me what you think. Cheers. C

 

[Connorsrpg]

Thanks to feedback in thread specific to Duelist, it has been pointed out that the archetype has little to actualy enforce/support if being a 'light, mobile fighter', and given the negativity around the general Unfettered option for all fighters, I am thinking of instead rolling the idea into the archetype.

That way it can also be limited. It can be a technique you choose. It could cost panache points. But I like the idea of it being active whilst you have PPs remaining in your pool.

(I could also add it in some way to the Blade Dancer).

Would this be a better compromise?

 

[Marandahir]

I still only see them via the link to your website.

I like Warmain. I do worry that it's only useful if one has En5ider. Since I have En5ider, I like the mechanics, and might like it enough to steal from it.

The others are too mechanically specific for my tastes. That many maneuvers that are specific to the subclass might seem alright on paper, when the Battle Master has a bunch of specific maneuvers, but there's a feat to get some maneuverability and several variant classes out there that drop a feature to gain those BM maneuvers. These, on the other hand, are a host abilities entirely unique to one build of one class. That's even more specific than the class-specific powers of 4e. One of the great innovations of 5e was allowing shared resources between classes. If something worked fine to cover a concept over here that would cover the same concept over there, it was shared.

Now, I'm not going to tell you what to do. I just think that many of these are too mechanically distinct. At a certain point, you begin to run the risk of being wildly variant due to so many moving parts. You also begin to seem like you're reinventing the wheel, at which point the D&D structure might not be the best format for it anymore. For example, I think a Hexblade is just fine as a Pact of the Blade Warlock. Certainly that was the intention of WotC. I also think it would be quite nice and fine to create a warlocky-fighter. Certainly the Eldritch Knight FIghter and Bladesinger Wizard show you can approach concepts from different directions (War Domain Cleric and Paladin do that too, as do Assassin Thief and Way of Shadow Monk). But the question should always be, in my mind, how necessary is this homebrew? Can I do the character in another way and still capture the feel? I'll give an example of what I'd call necessary homebrew. In En5ider048, we have the Druid subclass, the Circle of the World. While at first the idea of a weapon-based Druid seems to be an odd idea, it's worth remembering the spells we got in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion – the Investiture spells, to be specific. These spells are quite beautiful renditions of the Warden's Guardian Forms from 4th Edition. However, neither of the two classes that seem to have picked up a bit of the slack of the Warden – the Oath of the Ancients Paladin and the Ranger in general – have access to 6th-level spells. Clearly, the concept needed one more approach at it. One way would be to make lower-level investiture-like spells. I had toyed with this for months, honestly, without thinking of this other, more elegant solution. Wardens are a Circle of Druid. It even makes sense – Wardens gather in Warding Circles.

So when exploring concepts like Gladiators or Duelists, it's always worth thinking, "how many times has this approach been taken before?" And "would one of these other ways work better?" And "is there a more elegant way to homebrew this archetype?" Simpler is almost always better. One of the best things about 5e is the relative lack of options paralysis bogging down the game.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Thanks [MENTION=6803643]Marandahir[/MENTION].

Especially thanks for following the link. Since others were reluctant to, I initially posted them into this thread, but then so feedback could be specific to each, I put them into their own threads. (Maybe I need to post links to these threads on here.

I fully understand your preference for simple. That is what the Warmain is for. Not sure how much of the thread you read, or if you read the linked thread re fighter concept vs mechanics.

Not wanting to cover old ground, but fighter PHB archetypes, many (inc me) do not see as 'archetypes/concepts'. They exist for their cool rules. I think there is room for both.

But yes, several of min are Battle Master level difficulty, on purpose. The Warmain is Champion level. There may be a cool way to do others using the simple Champion approach too. I developed these for specific purposes; namely for players that liked some systems and ideas from other games. But I also tried to make mine more thematic than the extremely broad Battle Master.

Anyway, that discussion has been played out.

I don't quite follow the 4E reference. Those classes were more like a grab bag of abilities that might not have been tied together thematically at all. I actually love that 5E brought back 'subclasses' so there is something thematic. I take it you mean across classes, but did not quite follow your point there. I don't see these 'concepts' as treading on other toes. Explained that above. Except maybe the hexblade. You might be right there. I think I might just remove reference to the features of the Fortune FIghter that are linked to arcane casting. That class was not built to 'be' a hexblade - I just added a couple for features to cover that ground if someone wanted to, but perhaps they are not needed.

(Anway, see individual threads - I will link here above - for specific subclasses).

BTW, if I was to write these out for EN5ider or whatever, the feat that lets you take Battle Master maneuvers would easily adapt to these class's techniques/maneuvers etc.

 

[Connorsrpg]

All subclasses now linked in the OP.

Hopefully seeing them in separate thread, on their own, it might not seem so overwhelming and each can be seen in isolation - and hopefully they don't seem 'too much' then. (I think I might separate them on my own website too).

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=6803643]Marandahir[/MENTION]

Just reread you post. Especially pertaining to the Q's re simpler/already done.

Yes, you can build some of these concepts with the Battle Master. But here is my point - you can build almost ANYTHING with it. (Same as Champion). It is not a concept on its own. And, the Battle Master has a rule set that is complicated. I think, if you read through, you will find a Duelist easier really.

But, again, I am not that fussed if something 'can' be constructed using other methods. I feel each of these have a niche. But just as important is the mechanics. Yes, a couple of these are here for the rules. And yes, they are inspired from non-D&D sources. But they were for players that loved those systems in other games and we thought we would cater to their desires and port them across in a form that 'can' be used with 5E.

Sure, not many people will like the idea of 'Raises & Stunts'. But if there are players that love Savage Worlds or the AGE system in a group that prefers D&D, here is their chance to bring in a little of their other favourite system. Same with Fortune Fighter and 13th Age.

I fully understand these are not for everyone. They are not to 'replace' other archetypes. They are here as additional ideas/options. Which is the beauty of 5E - easy to add them in. Even better, subclasses allow this sort of customisation without changing too much. Great idea for a base class and subclass add-ons. You can ignore many of the subclasses and the game plays fine. But it is a good part of the game to homebrew and tailor subclasses to your setting, game style, player's desires etc. Just hoping there is someone out there that sees the validity of these options.