5E Fighter Variant - Light Fighter (experiment)

[Greg K]

Sorry for the rant, this is way broken.

Depends on how the DM runs their game. You are assuming that anyone can multiclass. Multiclassing is, however, an optional rule not a player's right. I and the DMs that I know that I will not generally allow it in 3e and, definitely, would not let a character simply dip in for some "build" or ability. We have had conversations and we probably will not allow it in 5e either or be just as restrictive as we were in 3e if we run it. Therefore, for us, this class variant is not broken and fills a necessary niche.

Plus, all he has done is what is suggested in the DMG for removing armor from clerics, but using intelligence

Perhaps, what the OP can do is make notes on multi-classing to address some of your concerns.

 

[Khaalis]

I don't want to get into a huge argument. Personally I couldn't care less if anyone uses or doesn't use the variant. I'm sure just as many people feel as you do as there are people who use it and like it for filling a need in their style of game. It simply fills a need for certain genres. /shrug

I will just say that Light Fighter's DEX+INT AC is no different than the Barbarian's DEX+CON, Monk's DEX+WIS or the Alternate Cleric DEX+WIS or even Connorsrpg Unfettered (DEX+INT) - all gained at Level 1 and just as open to "abuse" if you allow min-maxing at your table. If you do, you can get better "broken" combos out of the core rules. Anyway, so should those abilities be removed as well? Not to mention as for the Wizard comment, I don't see Uncanny Defense as being really any better than Wizard dipping one level of Fighter for being a Plate wearing wizard with the addition of the Defense Fighting Style, especially since nearly nobody bothers to enforce encumbrance rules and in 5E there is nothing that prevents a wizard from casting in armor they are proficient in.

Additionally I have to say the Light Fighter doesn't obsolete the Fighter. They are two paths to the same end.

As I always say, taste and opinion are subjective.

 

[bedir than]

[MENTION=2167]Khaalis[/MENTION] this got lost so I'm asking again. Did you consider building this as subclasses?

 

[Khaalis]

[MENTION=2167]Khaalis[/MENTION] this got lost so I'm asking again. Did you consider building this as subclasses?

I did consider it. In fact it was my first draft. However, I felt it didn't work thematically or mechanically. Thematically, light fighting is rather different than that of a heavy fighter. For lack of time to better explain, if you've ever seen the Antonio Banderas and Anthony Hopkins version of Zorro, the fighting circles is a perfect example of light fighter training. Whereas a "heavy" fighter was trained is more traditional heavy infantry and heavy cavalry combat. Even when studying the old martial handbooks, heavy fighters were trained to move and leverage their bodies but in a very different manner than later rapier-style fighting. Heavy fighting also focused more on military training (wearing and maneuvering in plate), mounted combat, etc. This is by no means an in depth study of the two styles as that could make up a small thesis, but I think it gets the thematic idea across.

Mechanically, I felt it didn't work because by doing so it automatically ruled out being able to differentiate between types or styles of light fighters. For instance a Brawler is a very different type of fighter than say a Gallant (a court-fighting trained noble; aka closer to modern fencing style). I just don't feel that every possible archetype of martial "fighter" can be pigeonholed into a single Fighter class.

 

[Sadrik]

Can I see your first draft as a sub-class. That is more to my liking. Less classes more options in each class. Thanks,

 

[Greg K]

Khaalis,
I am in complete agreement. One of my three "major" dislikes of 5e (i.e. things I need to address house rule) is that several classes have to wait until third level for their subclass. The reason is that variations of archetypes are often influenced by culture, environment, where they trained, who trained them and the differentiation should start at first level. Waiting until third level means, the character picks up baggage they have to ignore and often wait for things they should have, thematically, at the start. Your Zorro example is a perfect example. As with you, it would not feel right thematically or mechanically as a subclass of the standard fighter.

I also agree with you on the issue of min-max and abuse. I started to add something similar to what you wrote, but due to lack of sleep and slipping into a "food coma" from a mother's day buffet, I was not sure if I was coming across as confrontational to spinozojack and erased the part of my post.

I did consider it. In fact it was my first draft. However, I felt it didn't work thematically or mechanically. Thematically, light fighting is rather different than that of a heavy fighter. For lack of time to better explain, if you've ever seen the Antonio Banderas and Anthony Hopkins version of Zorro, the fighting circles is a perfect example of light fighter training. Whereas a "heavy" fighter was trained is more traditional heavy infantry and heavy cavalry combat. Even when studying the old martial handbooks, heavy fighters were trained to move and leverage their bodies but in a very different manner than later rapier-style fighting. Heavy fighting also focused more on military training (wearing and maneuvering in plate), mounted combat, etc. This is by no means an in depth study of the two styles as that could make up a small thesis, but I think it gets the thematic idea across.

Mechanically, I felt it didn't work because by doing so it automatically ruled out being able to differentiate between types or styles of light fighters. For instance a Brawler is a very different type of fighter than say a Gallant (a court-fighting trained noble; aka closer to modern fencing style). I just don't feel that every possible archetype of martial "fighter" can be pigeonholed into a single Fighter class.

 

[Khaalis]

I don't actually have the original draft. However, it would be easy enough to make something that works for yourself and within the bounds of the Fighter (STR & CON), but it will lack in certain areas. Referring to the Class Design article from the Unearthed Arcana line, you have to think of HOW this fits as a Subclass. What do you want this Subclass to do that sets it apart from other Fighters.

Off the top of my head, I would say it is Mobility. So here is just a toss together off the top of my head for a Swashbuckler fighter subclass.

Swashbuckler (Fighter)
Level 3 - Unarmored Defense (Barbarian p38)
Level 7 - Choose either: Evasion (Monk p181) OR Uncanny Dodge (Rogue p96)
Level 10 - With Daring & Panache (Light Fighter Swashbuckler or Unearthed Arcana Swashbuckler's "Elegant Maneuver")
Level 15 - Swashbuckling Deeds (Light Fighter Swashbuckler)
Level 18 - Master Duelist (Unearthed Arcana Rogue Swashbuckler)

 

[Sadrik]

Perhaps make the unarmed defense a fighting style:
Unarmored Defense: While wearing no armor, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom or Constitution Modifier.

This would make the most sense to me. This makes the fighter automatically able to do the barbarian tough guy and the monk lithe guy. Even if they had both a high Wisdom or Constitution they would have to pick one to use.

I like it. What do you think of it?

Edit: Just for fun you could give the monk and the barbarian a fighting style to choose from too in lieu of their unarmed defense ability. Many would likely take the unarmed defense but I can imagine a few would change it up.

 

[bedir than]

As a fighting style and then making that a requirement for the subclasses and I think I can use that at my table

 

[Khaalis]

@ Sadrik:
I guess this could work. Uncanny defense is a 1st level feature, as is Fighting Style. If you do however, I'd say that you need to offer an optional variant to replace the ability for the barbarian. Something that works for an armored barbarian concept (like a dwarven berserker) since that archetype "loses" their primary first level feature. The concept doesn't so much fit the monk thematically or mechanically as it is really the Defining class for unarmored fighting (which is why I think the Fighter archetype needs a brawler subclass to fill that niche).