transcendantviewer
First Post
In that case, it could just be an option that they don't require a weapon.
Last edited:
Class variants: ranger, fighter, and others ("Class X" series)
- Thread starter Quickleaf
- Start date
In that case, it could just be an option that they don't require a weapon.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
I'm really not convinced that the Veteran is necessary as a subclass...I mean, it is a beautifully constructed subclass, don't get me wrong. But seems a bit too "Any/Every Fighter can be this guy" to really justify itself. A Battlemaster can play the grizzled veteran...a Champion can play a weapon or warfare specialist...and/or/vice/versa. I think the premise of the subclass is more appropriate to the area of character background.
Slayer as well...any fighter of any subclass should be capable of being an effective monster-hunter. But, this is not quite so..."general", I suppose, as the Veteran concept.
Cavalier and Warlord, of course, have legacy and/or popularity at their backs and are specific archetypes (given the differentiation made between a Battlemaster and Warlord), we haven't seen in the game yet.
The "Guardian", as the mythic "chosen one" hero, is a great concept also and one I've thought of doing myself, for those looking for the "Destined"/"Mythic"/Grecian demigod or Arthurian/Aragorn One who Would [or Shall] be King heroes type. Hadn't really decided on a name for it yet, but really like the concept. [As you know, "Guardian" is taken by a ranger subclass of mine. haha.
]
Slayer as well...any fighter of any subclass should be capable of being an effective monster-hunter. But, this is not quite so..."general", I suppose, as the Veteran concept.
Cavalier and Warlord, of course, have legacy and/or popularity at their backs and are specific archetypes (given the differentiation made between a Battlemaster and Warlord), we haven't seen in the game yet.
The "Guardian", as the mythic "chosen one" hero, is a great concept also and one I've thought of doing myself, for those looking for the "Destined"/"Mythic"/Grecian demigod or Arthurian/Aragorn One who Would [or Shall] be King heroes type. Hadn't really decided on a name for it yet, but really like the concept. [As you know, "Guardian" is taken by a ranger subclass of mine. haha.
]
Last edited:
Quickleaf
Legend
Hey, thanks for your comments, mate! I'll be giving your ranger another look over, and generally getting caught up on ENWorld, this week.
Battlemaster and Champion tell us very little about the identity of your fighter. Whereas a College of Valor bard or an Enchanter wizard says a lot about that character's identity. Actually, Mike Mearls in the latest Tome Show mentions that he regrets being too mechanics-focused in the fighter sub-class design, and not focused more on creating identity. I agree with that sentiment.
Another train of thought: Does a fighter with a Noble background (and maybe the Mounted Combat feat) totally cover a cavalier? Similarly, does a fighter with a Soldier background totally cover a grizzled veteran?
My answer to this is emphatically "no" because:
Does every fighter hunt a specific foe with single-minded focus? Does every fighter rely on terrifying their foes and hang trophies of fallen foes from their shield or saddle bags? Does every fighter have a unique magic weapon bonded to them to aid their hunt?
My answer was "no", making the Slayer a viable archetype (even if the name is not the greatest and it's a bit of a smorgasbord concept).
I totally get your point, but I have a different philosophy of design: Sub-classes should provide identity, not just mechanics.
Battlemaster and Champion tell us very little about the identity of your fighter. Whereas a College of Valor bard or an Enchanter wizard says a lot about that character's identity. Actually, Mike Mearls in the latest Tome Show mentions that he regrets being too mechanics-focused in the fighter sub-class design, and not focused more on creating identity. I agree with that sentiment.
Another train of thought: Does a fighter with a Noble background (and maybe the Mounted Combat feat) totally cover a cavalier? Similarly, does a fighter with a Soldier background totally cover a grizzled veteran?
My answer to this is emphatically "no" because:
- The grizzled veteran archetype, like the cavalier archetype, has enough to it that there is plenty of design space to explore beyond a background (or feat). A cavalier is MORE than a fighter with the Noble background. Same is true for a grizzled veteran.
- Not every player of a fighter with the Soldier background wants to end up as a grizzled veteran. Sure, that's one direction they could take their character. But maybe they picture more of a mythic "chosen one" hero? Or maybe a wandering weapon master duelist who tries to put his military service behind him?
It's actually a huge archetype when you look at video games and anime. Aesthetically, I like such things to stay at the periphery of my gaming, but I know there are lots of players that are fans. If they can get a monk based on the Last Airbender, they why not a fighter based on Monster Hunter (or insert a pop culture reference that I'm failing at, haha).
Does every fighter hunt a specific foe with single-minded focus? Does every fighter rely on terrifying their foes and hang trophies of fallen foes from their shield or saddle bags? Does every fighter have a unique magic weapon bonded to them to aid their hunt?
My answer was "no", making the Slayer a viable archetype (even if the name is not the greatest and it's a bit of a smorgasbord concept).
I imagine my version of the Warlord/Marshal wouldn't make a 3.5e/4e player totally happy, but it fits well thematically as a sub-class of fighter, there's limited healing ability, and overall I went for a more holistic approach encompassing many aspects of a "warlord" archetype.
Yeah, I can see why it wasn't made a sub-class... any character could have "destined" in their backstory after all, and D&D translated Aragorn as the ranger class. But I think it fits fighter great and provides much-needed identity!The "Guardian", as the mythic "chosen one" hero, is a great concept also and one I've thought of doing myself, for those looking for the "Destined"/"Mythic"/Grecian demigod or Arthurian/Aragorn One who Would [or Shall] be King heroes type. Hadn't really decided on a name for it yet, but really like the concept. [As you know, "Guardian" is taken by a ranger subclass of mine. haha.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
I suppose my object to both the grizzled veteran and slayer subtypes isn't so much about the idea/concept, and its certainly not about mechanics.
I absolutely, 100% agree that subclasses need to offer a degree of identity...otherwise they really are just a mechanics bundle, and I am VERY against that sort of D&D. That "degree" though, must [or "should", imho] still allow for multiple character types within it.
My problem, I suppose, is not that the Veteran and Slayer strike me as too "general" a concept at large, and that might be the incorrect angle for what I'm trying convey. My point is the identity being presented is too specific in that it is really the kind of things are [again, "shouble be", imho] role playing choices, not dictated by class/subclass/mechanics.
I should be able to do a fighter or a ranger or, how about a cleric [a la Van Helsing], that is a single-minded focus on hunting down fighting monsters/a particular monster? I should be able to make a wizard or rogue who fought in the last great war and is, as a result, a "grizzled veteran."
I saw the comment on the Mearls thread and I agree, in terms of evocative, the Fighter subclass names are the least evocative. But they do what needs doing. The more to specify flavor, and it needs specifying to justify the subclass at all, but when you begin to step beyond the flavor into things like motivations and/or default mental states, then you're removing player agency and begin eroding the things about the role-playing game that are the purview of role-playing...and that's a step too far [for me].
I can be a fighter with a soldier background who's perfectly well adjusted and still the would be hero. Or I could be the Fighter, Champion, Battlemaster (or Eldritch Knight, I suppose) who is a grizzled veteran from their battle/wartime experiences. I could have a CHampion or Battlemaster or Eldritch Knight (or any other class, for that matter) that has a singular purpose to hunting down some hated monster or monster type.
That's an RP choice for the player to make about their character. A subclass shouldn't really be dictating THAT part of the character...again, imho. Have an "identity" for sure, but many character types/concepts have to be possible/able to exist within that identity, not dictate one.
By contrast, the Cavalier has the identity and flavor (the mounted warrior, the warrior-but-not-paladin knight) but doesn't dictate beyond flavor to intrude on "identity"...if that distinction makes sense. The Warlord as well. The Guardian/Destined hero, you may be correct, might be better served as a feat or background, itself. As that, also, is the kind of thing that could/should be available to a character of any class (though, admittedly, in myth and literature, they are nearly always warrior types).
I absolutely, 100% agree that subclasses need to offer a degree of identity...otherwise they really are just a mechanics bundle, and I am VERY against that sort of D&D. That "degree" though, must [or "should", imho] still allow for multiple character types within it.
My problem, I suppose, is not that the Veteran and Slayer strike me as too "general" a concept at large, and that might be the incorrect angle for what I'm trying convey. My point is the identity being presented is too specific in that it is really the kind of things are [again, "shouble be", imho] role playing choices, not dictated by class/subclass/mechanics.
I should be able to do a fighter or a ranger or, how about a cleric [a la Van Helsing], that is a single-minded focus on hunting down fighting monsters/a particular monster? I should be able to make a wizard or rogue who fought in the last great war and is, as a result, a "grizzled veteran."
I saw the comment on the Mearls thread and I agree, in terms of evocative, the Fighter subclass names are the least evocative. But they do what needs doing. The more to specify flavor, and it needs specifying to justify the subclass at all, but when you begin to step beyond the flavor into things like motivations and/or default mental states, then you're removing player agency and begin eroding the things about the role-playing game that are the purview of role-playing...and that's a step too far [for me].
I can be a fighter with a soldier background who's perfectly well adjusted and still the would be hero. Or I could be the Fighter, Champion, Battlemaster (or Eldritch Knight, I suppose) who is a grizzled veteran from their battle/wartime experiences. I could have a CHampion or Battlemaster or Eldritch Knight (or any other class, for that matter) that has a singular purpose to hunting down some hated monster or monster type.
That's an RP choice for the player to make about their character. A subclass shouldn't really be dictating THAT part of the character...again, imho. Have an "identity" for sure, but many character types/concepts have to be possible/able to exist within that identity, not dictate one.
By contrast, the Cavalier has the identity and flavor (the mounted warrior, the warrior-but-not-paladin knight) but doesn't dictate beyond flavor to intrude on "identity"...if that distinction makes sense. The Warlord as well. The Guardian/Destined hero, you may be correct, might be better served as a feat or background, itself. As that, also, is the kind of thing that could/should be available to a character of any class (though, admittedly, in myth and literature, they are nearly always warrior types).
Last edited:
One of my 9 years old kid is an eldricht warrior. He turns level 12 after 14 months of play (and 7 of real gaming). Is he less a veteran than a level 3 "veteran" because he matured that fast ? He was 17 years old equivalent at level 1.
Is the veteran status acquired with age or Xp ?
Also, he used to be a murderous hobo before I pointed out he can be nice to the monsters and get respect from them. He is now a co-founder of my homebrew illuminati faction (he will be level 20 patron of the faction in 500 years for the next Princes of Apocalypse campaign.
I just point out here his behavior CHANGED. From "killer" sub-class to wannabe Mastermind. I agree a player cannot be that specific because her role may change over time.
Quickleaf
Legend
Hmm. I wonder how much is a nomenclature issue, and how much is an actual concept issue... Anyhow...
You could also play a Champion, Battlemaster, or Eldritch Knight fighter who has the noble background, the mounted combat feat, and is lawful good. Does that invalidate the Cavalier as a viable sub-class?
Not really, IMO. A player might choose to play a mounted archer of the steppes using a Cavalier, while another player might play a classic knight, and yet another might play a tiefling-with-a-heart-of-gold who rides a shadow steed in a Paul Revere-like role while commoners shutter their windows when he passes.
Similarly with the Grizzled Veteran (though perhaps the name should change?). A player might play a hardened but good-hearted crusader grown bitter and trying to find his faith after committing atrocities during war, while another player might play a cussing dwarven mercenary, and yet another might play the haunted sole survivor of an expeditionary unit sent into battle against a Mordor-style army.
When I look and the Cavalier and the Grizzled Veteran, I see both have identity and flavor in good balance, with enough room to make the sub-class your own.
But tastes differ, maybe in leaning hard to create identity, I've learned harder than many players (like you) would be comfortable with in terms of their agency.
I guess I'm just not clear on the distinction you're making.
Yep, that's why I made it a fighter sub-class!
Catadon posted his final point-buy version at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kmyfpuosuy5obal/5e unusual races point build 11 compiled public.pdf?dl=0
and excel sheet at
www.dropbox.com/s/clilpphgmtqz92o/5e Design 18 public.xlsx?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kmyfpuosuy5obal/5e unusual races point build 11 compiled public.pdf?dl=0
and excel sheet at
www.dropbox.com/s/clilpphgmtqz92o/5e Design 18 public.xlsx?dl=0
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
It could be, as you say, a matter of taste.
The distinction I'm looking at is the kind of thing you specify for the cavalier. Yes. A steppes archer, a typical [cavalier] knight-in-shining-armor/-errant, a mounted [forgive the term overlap] "warlord" leading their forces from horseback, etc... These, to me, is the kind of diversity that should be present in the subclass.
By contrast, the three examples of "veteran" characters you prresent read, to me, as pretty much 3 of the same character. This guy was a solider instead of a mercenary vs. sole survivor of "expedition unit" [is that not the same as a soldier or mercenary?]? Is there really a significant "enough" difference in these characters to justify a subclass? To my tastes, not really.
But we are in complete agreement that a class and its subclass must absolutely present a differentiating flavor and story elements...those elements though, I feel, need to permit for significantly different types of the proposed concept and the concept for Veteran [and Slayer to a lesser extent] is simply too narrow.
It may be, however, a taste/preference of where that line is drawn and, ya know, as with all things D&D no "right/wrong" way/answer.
The distinction I'm looking at is the kind of thing you specify for the cavalier. Yes. A steppes archer, a typical [cavalier] knight-in-shining-armor/-errant, a mounted [forgive the term overlap] "warlord" leading their forces from horseback, etc... These, to me, is the kind of diversity that should be present in the subclass.
By contrast, the three examples of "veteran" characters you prresent read, to me, as pretty much 3 of the same character. This guy was a solider instead of a mercenary vs. sole survivor of "expedition unit" [is that not the same as a soldier or mercenary?]? Is there really a significant "enough" difference in these characters to justify a subclass? To my tastes, not really.
But we are in complete agreement that a class and its subclass must absolutely present a differentiating flavor and story elements...those elements though, I feel, need to permit for significantly different types of the proposed concept and the concept for Veteran [and Slayer to a lesser extent] is simply too narrow.
It may be, however, a taste/preference of where that line is drawn and, ya know, as with all things D&D no "right/wrong" way/answer.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
Posted my own take on the cavalier, borrowing some inspiration from Quickleaf and some OSR systems, in my "Ranger Rehash" thread.
Take a look. Let me know what you think.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465488-Ranger-Rehash/page3
Take a look. Let me know what you think.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465488-Ranger-Rehash/page3
Quickleaf
Legend
[MENTION=6787234]peterka99[/MENTION] Thanks for the heads up! He does an impressive table in the end of many traits and their point values in his system.
Also, congrats on transitioning your 9 year-old out of "murder hobo" mode
[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] Just posted my thoughts on your Cavalier - it looks really good!
Conceptually, my design directive for the fighter is threefold:
Also, congrats on transitioning your 9 year-old out of "murder hobo" mode
[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] Just posted my thoughts on your Cavalier - it looks really good!
Conceptually, my design directive for the fighter is threefold:
- What a Fighter Is: The fighter is about armed combat prowess, staying power, and reputation/renown. He should be the best in the game at these compared to other classes. Every design decision in the class and the sub-classes should go back to this mandate. Note that armed combat prowess is not the end all, be all of the fighter as I see it.
- Complexity Toggle / Weapon Mastery: Fighting styles are active talents the player uses, rather than the mostly passive features presented in the PHB. You determine which weapon groups you focus on based on the talents you choose. You also determine the complexity of your fighter based on the talents you choose (some are "advanced" and some are "simple").
- Thematically Flavorful Sub-classes: Because the question of complexity/simplicity is shunted to the fighting talents, sub-classes are a place to explore narratively meaningful differences between various types of fighters. Somewhere around 4-6 feels about right. In this system, the Eldritch Knight would be an option too, since it does a decent job of capturing a particular niche.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
