Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Connorsrpg" data-source="post: 6622597" data-attributes="member: 19265">Thanks for the comments people. Obviously not popular <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification