I feel weird saying this, because I don’t like the fighter, but maybe a fighter subclass that gets extra skills?Feels like there's a lack of 'Smart' archetypes. Unless you're using Wizard spells you basically have no reason to invest in INT and, like it or not, mechanical support is always gonna be a factor for a majority of players.
Seems like no other archetype needs to be smart and cultured other than those specific spellcasters. Even the Rogues and all their skills can make do with proficiency and expertise to counter bad INT.
I would also support the Acrobat, essentially a Rogue that is divorced from the Thief origin (and its emphasis on Stealth and Thieves Tools use) and just keeps the agility and maybe sneak attack aspect.
Ah yes. More skills is a nice ribbon there's no denying that.
Could have been cool if your superiority dice or number of maneuver had been based on INT mod somehow.The Savant is a pretty good template for what can be done with INT focused fighters. So actually is the Battle Master, even though that subclass isn't based on INT use at all, I can see ways that it could be. That said, the Savant is essentially an INT based Battle Master, so it's maybe not odd that those are my two best examples.
It's a bit boring no? Plus I'm not sure it gives more incentive to go for INT as a secondary or even tertiary stat.
Yes, extra skills would just be part of the subclass.
Yes, extra skills would just be part of the subclass.
I was specifically referring to the acrobat, but forgot to clarify that. The basis of the fighter acrobat would be getting Athletics and Acrobatics automatically, and then getting movement based benefits as well.
Yeah, the Savant was part of the Touch of Class supplement produced by this very website. The Savant is actually the free teaser for that book and should still be available for free download hereabouts somewhere. It's cool, I'd recommend checking it out.Could have been cool if your superiority dice or number of maneuver had been based on INT mod somehow.
The Savant is a third party thing?
I'll check it out!Yeah, the Savant was part of the Touch of Class supplement produced by this very website. The Savant is actually the free teaser for that book and should still be available for free download hereabouts somewhere. It's cool, I'd recommend checking it out.
They had a chance to make something of that effect with the Samurai but instead we got a complete flop... And considering how terrible Arcane Archer is, XGtE was not super kind to Fighters...There was also an intelligence based fighter thread started by @Garthanos recently, but it was focused on 4e.
The Spanish Circle is a great basis for an intelligence fighter. Within x range, you get certain benefits against your enemies, can trick them to move into disadvantaged position, and get defensive benefits based on Int.
The easiest way to do this is with a valor bard who has the criminal (spy variant) background. The subclass bakes combat right into it to cover the 1e fighter requirements and the background covers the 1e thief requirements. All that's needed is appropriate skill proficiencies, taking spells shared with the druid spell list, and using magical secrets for druid spells. I've done it with lore bards too.Bard: college with access to druid spell list. Goes back to 1st edition, which in term goes back to the Victorian reinvention of druids, and the myth of Taliesin.
Agreed. I had it listed among the bard archetypes in the original test forums for 5e. A shaman preserves history via storytelling, among other things. A bard is one of the first things that comes to mind for the archetype. Clerics and druids also work.Actually, the Bard makes a great shaman.
It's not actually refluff unless a person has predetermined the bard is a minstrel of some sort, which is inaccurate. D&D often treats the class like an entertainer, but the roots are deeper than that. Bards were the oral tradition and scholars in many cultures under different names but similar roles. They were historians and keepers of customary law. They were also attributed magical abilities.Huh. I can see that. Another case, though, where a dedicated subclass with a couple of flavorful abilities would really bring it to life, instead of having to refluff everything in your own head.
Bards are already those things. Every bard has a bonus to intelligence skills from jack of all trades, but moving into the archetype more only requires the sage background (or similar sources of intelligence skill proficiencies) and expertise in history. Expertise in history, proficiency in religion, and proficiency in perform covers the traditional bard role or story-teller well.I had only thought about it for bards (to become sages, historians, teachers and storytellers) and paladins (for an arcane god, to become gish).
I saw other answers to this, but expertise in social skills already exists for rogues. That's not requesting a missing archetype; it's requesting special powers regardless of the archetype already being creatable. ;-)Rogues are cool, but where are the matchstick men, the con artists, that use deceit and manipulation to get what they want? We need some larcenous experts on social skills who get people to part with their wealth under false pretenses.
The archetype is covered in a background. The class spells and skill proficiencies can be taken to match. Lore master does the job reasonably well.But bards are artists, entertainers, and loremasters, not necessarily interested in stealing. There is definitely overlap, but there should be a roguish version.
Arcane trickster with the appropriate background and proficiencies works great for the roguish minstrel archetype too. Doesn't even need to be a bard.Bard with the Background of Criminal or Chareltan. Done.
Maybe not, but Crunch is fun!I think some of y'all are confusing "archetype" with "class that has the following abilities". A lot of the stuff presented can be covered with existing classes, subclasses, ability (skill) checks, and backgrounds; and multi-classing if need be. A specific archetype doesn't need to be specifically created to exist or be a specific class. ;-)
Shadow spells would definitely be nice.Yeah it is true that part of the fun is building class concepts in different ways. I think they still need to go a bit further on the Warlord front.
As far as the shadowdancer or shadow mage / Warlock / sorcerer goes, I think the gap is possibly due to the lack of shadow themed spells as much as anything else.