-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
5E Fighter Variant - Light Fighter (experiment)
- Thread starter Khaalis
- Start date
I prefer your take. I didn't care for the UA Mariner style and the Rogue Swashbuckler was merely ok, in my opinion (and I am thnking less of it after reading comments in thread about article.
What is it about the Mariner fighting style you don't like? I can see it being especially useful for the Corsair.
I'm curious. What is being said about the Swashbuckler Rogue path? I think its a fairly decent way to make a more CHA based rogue viable. Tough I have to say I'm not keen on the Tanking aspect of Panache. The rogue really doesn't want a creature focused on them like that.
Sadrik
First Post
I think the rogue is the same design space as a light fighter. This fighter type does not need to be teased out. I can see a mix of backgrounds and a few new rogue sub-classes and you have a light fighter.
I think the mariner fighting style is fine. For the swashbuckler, it would have been neat to open it up like the battle master and grant them maneuvers similar to the fighter sub-class. The maneuvers they offered could have been some of the fighter's and some unique to themselves.
I think the mariner fighting style is fine. For the swashbuckler, it would have been neat to open it up like the battle master and grant them maneuvers similar to the fighter sub-class. The maneuvers they offered could have been some of the fighter's and some unique to themselves.
@ Sadrik: YMMV, but I just had to state that I disagree with the summary that Rogue and Light Fighter fit the same design space. The skill sets of the two are still quite different. Rogues still have a niche for exploration and being a burst damage dealer that the light fighter does not, and light fighters still maintain their "tank" role which a rogue does not. There are MANY archetypes for characters that fit within the Light fighter umbrella that shouldn't be key-holed into being rogues. That said, no one forces anyone to use the Light fighter. Its simply a variant for people who see its use.
bedir than
Full Moon Storyteller
After looking these over I'd almost rather they be built as subclasses from the base fighter. I'm likely going to be using the corsair in that way.
Connorsrpg
Adventurer
Okay, the Unfettered was the first archetype I thought was missing from the PHB. I liked the work put in here by [MENTION=2167]Khaalis[/MENTION], but had some alternate ideas (as expressed above). As Khaalis stated, I have built my own burger. 
I initially was going the way of new class, but settled on a slight optional modification of the fighter class (like WotC did with the no-spell ranger).
Then I developed 2 archetypes to play off the light fighter idea. The work I have done on the Fighter can be found here: http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/5e-fighter
(NB: there is a 3rd archetype on the page, that can be used with light fighter, but does not need to be).
For love of the tradition, I also developed a Blade singer feat. http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-feats
I designed them this way, so that the small option to the fighter means all archetypes can still be used either way. With this option, eldritch knights can make traditional elven mage-blades, or armored battle mages. I have tried to carefully consider what is already there with other archetypes, feats and fighting styles. (I may have missed a bad/power combo, but I was trying to remain aware of all the interplays.
You will notice I also distinguished the archetypes with their own mechanics: mechanics I have seen and liked elsewhere. A lot of kudos goes to **13th Age** for 2 of them
I initially was going the way of new class, but settled on a slight optional modification of the fighter class (like WotC did with the no-spell ranger).
Then I developed 2 archetypes to play off the light fighter idea. The work I have done on the Fighter can be found here: http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/5e-fighter
(NB: there is a 3rd archetype on the page, that can be used with light fighter, but does not need to be).
For love of the tradition, I also developed a Blade singer feat. http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-feats
I designed them this way, so that the small option to the fighter means all archetypes can still be used either way. With this option, eldritch knights can make traditional elven mage-blades, or armored battle mages. I have tried to carefully consider what is already there with other archetypes, feats and fighting styles. (I may have missed a bad/power combo, but I was trying to remain aware of all the interplays.
You will notice I also distinguished the archetypes with their own mechanics: mechanics I have seen and liked elsewhere. A lot of kudos goes to **13th Age** for 2 of them
Last edited:
A couple thoughts. Archetypes were a great idea in Pathfinder, yet easy pickings to cherry pick features when multiclassing. For example a trickster / caster rogue would pick the lightly armored fighter archetype and then have canny defense for the win. Is it overpowered to allow dex and int to AC? Maybe not in the average case, but for someone who might have rolled two 18s or two 17s at level 1, a human variant would have 20 AC for the whopping cost of 5gp. A Barbarian could do that, but he needs strength boosted too, so he has a three stat dependency. Monks need dex and wis only, so this is roughly equivalent to what a roguish combat wizard would have, with a 1 level dip. What's better than concentration saves? Not getting hit in the first place. This is going to be a power pick for wizards or other casters, for sure. And you don't even have to take the fighter level dip at level 1 to get all the armor prof, which makes Uncanny Defense more applicable to more characters at more levels and therefore much more powerful. A wizard would have 20-22 AC within no time.
The second issue I have with it is the idea of archetypes taken at level 3. That's a semi-good idea, given that's what the subclasses do already. A better subclass way to regain the use of lost or unused armor proficiencies from the base fighter would be to simply supercede them. Picking up one level of fighter for uncanny defense is too good I think, it would be better to have this at level 3 in my opinion, even if that goes in a different direction than previously.
The only thing that really keeps this stuff from completely obsoleting the base fighter is the great weapon master feat. As soon as you realize that archery style plus kensai plus sharpshooter gives three attacks at level 5 with superlative bonuses to hit and damage (when dual throwing daggers), it's going to start making rogues jealous how much damage you can do without even having allies near the opponent. I would even multiclass with swashbuckler rogue to never get another OA while bladesinging.
With action surge you could probably attack 10 times in the first round of combat with no chance of retaliation. That's if you swashbuckle but if you don't you still need to ask yourself, is a feat a good thing to give that is nearly as good as a subclass feature?
Dex is already king in D&D, except for Great Weapon Master. Perhaps great weapon master being so powerful establishes many other seemingly powerful options.
A much simpler approach would be to remove medium and heavy armor proficiencies and give them + 1 to AC. That would still be a good thing for rogues to pick up, but not a must have multiclass selection for wizards and basically any and every non heavy armor wearing class in the game. A single level dip for up to +5 to AC (adding Int to AC in an urban setting where armor is banned)? Sure, I'll take that. As would everyone. A good sign it would be overpowering.
Getting better AC than plate, no speed or disadvantage to stealth checks or anything. This is a strict power boost to casters and rogues. Heavy knights have no purpose. It's fine for an urban game being that heavy armor is something only palace guards might wear in most cities, but then even leaving down to go into battle in a war scenario would be strictly superior to have an army of uncanny defense swashbucklers.
Sorry for the rant, this is way broken.
The second issue I have with it is the idea of archetypes taken at level 3. That's a semi-good idea, given that's what the subclasses do already. A better subclass way to regain the use of lost or unused armor proficiencies from the base fighter would be to simply supercede them. Picking up one level of fighter for uncanny defense is too good I think, it would be better to have this at level 3 in my opinion, even if that goes in a different direction than previously.
The only thing that really keeps this stuff from completely obsoleting the base fighter is the great weapon master feat. As soon as you realize that archery style plus kensai plus sharpshooter gives three attacks at level 5 with superlative bonuses to hit and damage (when dual throwing daggers), it's going to start making rogues jealous how much damage you can do without even having allies near the opponent. I would even multiclass with swashbuckler rogue to never get another OA while bladesinging.
With action surge you could probably attack 10 times in the first round of combat with no chance of retaliation. That's if you swashbuckle but if you don't you still need to ask yourself, is a feat a good thing to give that is nearly as good as a subclass feature?
Dex is already king in D&D, except for Great Weapon Master. Perhaps great weapon master being so powerful establishes many other seemingly powerful options.
A much simpler approach would be to remove medium and heavy armor proficiencies and give them + 1 to AC. That would still be a good thing for rogues to pick up, but not a must have multiclass selection for wizards and basically any and every non heavy armor wearing class in the game. A single level dip for up to +5 to AC (adding Int to AC in an urban setting where armor is banned)? Sure, I'll take that. As would everyone. A good sign it would be overpowering.
Getting better AC than plate, no speed or disadvantage to stealth checks or anything. This is a strict power boost to casters and rogues. Heavy knights have no purpose. It's fine for an urban game being that heavy armor is something only palace guards might wear in most cities, but then even leaving down to go into battle in a war scenario would be strictly superior to have an army of uncanny defense swashbucklers.
Sorry for the rant, this is way broken.
