D&D 5E Companion thread to "5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part VI: Fighters)"

Undrave

Hero
Man... people really piled on the poor Rune Knight. Is it just because they hate the way runes were linked to giants in DnD or they just don't like the subclass as it is??
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Man... people really piled on the poor Rune Knight. Is it just because they hate the way runes were linked to giants in DnD or they just don't like the subclass as it is??
As a card-carrying Rune Knight hater, let me count the ways...

  • it's a fighter subclass centred around magical abilities rather than fighting
  • it's got nothing to do with runes, and nothing to do with knighthood
  • D&Ds elemental-themed giants are boring and uninspired despite the enormous effort 5th ed has put into trying to convince people otherwise
  • it's silly that Rune Knights can get giant-based abilities that giants themselves don't have
  • if WotC wants PC giants, they should stop being cowards and write them up as a race, not mess about with subclasses that turn PCs into part-time quasi-giants
  • the 'runes' are a poorly balanced and unthematic mess. The Hill Giant ability is probably the best, and that's not the way it should work given they're the whipping boys of giantkind. The abilities the runes grant are really just a random grab-bag of buttons to press with any sort of in-world thematic coherence a distant afterthought.
  • the class feature where your PC grows permanently by a small amount is pointless and meaningless and is the sort of thing that should be left to players and GMs. Possibly the only dumber class feature in the entirety of D&D is that monk subclass where as one of your class abilities you get ... a mask. Which does nothing. Except it's a mask. That you can wear on your face.
  • the illusion of choice - you choose the runes you know, but there are so few and so many of them are level-gated that basically all Rune Knights will end up roughly the same anyway
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
As a card-carrying Rune Knight hater, let me count the ways...

  • it's a fighter subclass centred around magical abilities rather than fighting
  • it's got nothing to do with runes, and nothing to do with knighthood
  • D&Ds elemental-themed giants are boring and uninspired despite the enormous effort 5th ed has put into trying to convince people otherwise
  • it's silly that Rune Knights can get giant-based abilities that giants themselves don't have
  • if WotC wants PC giants, they should stop being cowards and write them up as a race, not mess about with subclasses that turn PCs into part-time quasi-giants
  • the 'runes' are a poorly balanced and unthematic mess. The Hill Giant ability is probably the best, and that's not the way it should work given they're the whipping boys of giantkind. The abilities the runes grant are really just a random grab-bag of buttons to press with any sort of in-world thematic coherence a distant afterthought.
  • the class feature where your PC grows permanently by a small amount is pointless and meaningless and is the sort of thing that should be left to players and GMs. Possibly the only dumber class feature in the entirety of D&D is that monk subclass where as one of your class abilities you get ... a mask. Which does nothing. Except it's a mask. That you can wear on your face.
  • the illusion of choice - you choose the runes you know, but there are so few and so many of them are level-gated that basically all Rune Knights will end up roughly the same anyway
As someone who's played a RK and had a great time:

1: You are still a fighter. You have abilities that make you bigger and better at grappling, do more damage, resist more damage... and a lot of the "magical abilities" are protective, allowing you to defend you party better -the RK is probably the best tank amongst the fighter (better than the cavalier). It is a "magical fighter" - same as the EK - but with a more primal feel, less "I spent a semester at wizard school".

2: The Runes are in the fluff. It's just that though - it could have been special crystals, alchemical extracts, etc etc. BUT having Runes that work in a mechanical way is quite challenging. As far the knight... that complain is valid for a lot of subclasses.

3: Giants are boring? Eh, they could be better, but I played in SKT and it was interesting.

4: That is an excellent point - and I give rune powers to giant "leaders". You know, to make them more interesting.

5: Balancing giants as a playable race is a nightmare. How many hp do you have at level 1? 3.X tried (somewhat) and it was wonky.

6: Could the runes be better? Yes. Could they be more balanced? Yes, but that's why level gating some of them was necessary I suppose. It is strange that the hill giant is so strong but here we are.

7: It's a ribbon feature, calm down ;)

8: Once again, a valid complaint that is valid about a number of other subclasses...
 


Undrave

Hero
Patient Turtle
Skill: Insight
If you do not move on your turn, or you use Second Wind, the next attack made against you before the start of your next turn is made at a disadvantage.
Thought of a new version of this one:

Patient Turtle
Skill: Insight
If you did not move this turn, you can take the Dodge action as a bonus action, then, if you do, your speed becomes 0 until the end of the turn. If you use the Second Wind class feature, you gain the benefit of the Dodge action.

Feels a little more active this way, more deliberate and not just a side effect of not moving.
 

Undrave

Hero
As a card-carrying Rune Knight hater, let me count the ways...

  • it's a fighter subclass centred around magical abilities rather than fighting
  • it's got nothing to do with runes, and nothing to do with knighthood
  • D&Ds elemental-themed giants are boring and uninspired despite the enormous effort 5th ed has put into trying to convince people otherwise
  • it's silly that Rune Knights can get giant-based abilities that giants themselves don't have
  • if WotC wants PC giants, they should stop being cowards and write them up as a race, not mess about with subclasses that turn PCs into part-time quasi-giants
  • the 'runes' are a poorly balanced and unthematic mess. The Hill Giant ability is probably the best, and that's not the way it should work given they're the whipping boys of giantkind. The abilities the runes grant are really just a random grab-bag of buttons to press with any sort of in-world thematic coherence a distant afterthought.
  • the class feature where your PC grows permanently by a small amount is pointless and meaningless and is the sort of thing that should be left to players and GMs. Possibly the only dumber class feature in the entirety of D&D is that monk subclass where as one of your class abilities you get ... a mask. Which does nothing. Except it's a mask. That you can wear on your face.
  • the illusion of choice - you choose the runes you know, but there are so few and so many of them are level-gated that basically all Rune Knights will end up roughly the same anyway
Would you say it's better or worse than the Rune Carver Wizard?

I always felt like Runes should be a thing you carve into equipments and could be used to buff OTHER people and not just you. runes should basically be a thing Artificer can do.

That, or be used to divine the future like actual ancient furthark runes...

But I liked the mechanics well enough.
 


Undrave

Hero
Geez, the last 24 hours were a massacre in that thread. It's still anyone's game but my predictions are:
  • By this time tomorrow we'll be down to BM vs EK.
  • Regardless of the next two eliminations, BM will win.
I always felt it was going to be down to BM vs EK... They're both optimizers' favourites and the BM is basically the poster boy for interesting martial classes.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
I always felt it was going to be down to BM vs EK... They're both optimizers' favourites and the BM is basically the poster boy for interesting martial classes.
Yep, agree on all points. My favorite in this contest was Echo Knight, but I'm happy to settle for Eldritch Knight or Battle Master.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
this is so false that 5e's encounter math literally disagrees with it. you are 100% expected to have a 20 in your casting/attack stat by level 8, and you can see that from looking at the CR table. it's a big reason why i genuinely hate that ASIs and feats take up the same resource (and that they seem to be doubling down on it for 5.5).
Totally disagree with this, and agree with @doctorbadwolf on it. 16 is all you need--you sure as heck don't need a 20 by level 8!

For myself (anyway), you need (or at least really want IME):
Tier 1: 14
Tier 2: 16
Tier 3: 18
Tier 4: 20

Do you need an 18 or 20 ever? No. But it is helpful at higher levels--at lower levels it is overkill and therefore I usually take half-feats so I slowly improve my ability score.

Man... people really piled on the poor Rune Knight. Is it just because they hate the way runes were linked to giants in DnD or they just don't like the subclass as it is??
Most of the points @humble minion made.

Geez, the last 24 hours were a massacre in that thread. It's still anyone's game but my predictions are:
  • By this time tomorrow we'll be down to BM vs EK.
  • Regardless of the next two eliminations, BM will win.
Yep. Unless a drive was made to eliminate either or both of them in the beginning (to get rid of the old), it was bound to happen.

Yep, agree on all points. My favorite in this contest was Echo Knight, but I'm happy to settle for Eldritch Knight or Battle Master.
My favorite was (still is) Champion, but I knew it would never make it... :(
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
Yep. Unless a drive was made to eliminate either or both of them in the beginning (to get rid of the old), it was bound to happen.
It's not for lack of trying; I think there's been a lot of downvote pressure on the Eldritch Knight for the last few days. It's only a matter of time until the downvotes succeed, too, since they're weighted twice as much as upvotes.

The Fighter class is my favorite. As much as I'd like to see the Eldritch Knight advance, I have to admit that the Battle Master is probably the best one to represent all Fighters in the final round. Cavalier or Samurai wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Avernus, so I'm not terribly upset about Battle Master being in the lead.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
It's not for lack of trying; I think there's been a lot of downvote pressure on the Eldritch Knight for the last few days. It's only a matter of time until the downvotes succeed, too, since they're weighted twice as much as upvotes.

The Fighter class is my favorite. As much as I'd like to see the Eldritch Knight advance, I have to admit that the Battle Master is probably the best one to represent all Fighters in the final round. Cavalier or Samurai wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Avernus, so I'm not terribly upset about Battle Master being in the lead.
I like the concept of the BM, but not the execution--superiority dice (horrible name) are too fiddly and a pain to track IME.

I made an "at-will" version of the BM that we use instead. The bonuses are lower, but you can use the features whenever you want (using either your bonus action or reaction to "power" them).

Frankly, I didn't want anything which uses magic in any fashion to win for Fighter--that would just seem wrong to me, so wrong...
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
I'm still salty about the Gunslinger not being included in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. I would have given it all of my upvotes.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for the OneD&D playtest, I guess.
 

I made an "at-will" version of the BM that we use instead. The bonuses are lower, but you can use the features whenever you want
I think that does make more sense than the BM whose fun/effectiveness depends entirely on how often you get to short rest.

Because I (want to) like BM for the options it gives you. I don't so much like that you have to NOT take those options to be able to make any choices later.
 

Frankly, I didn't want anything which uses magic in any fashion to win for Fighter--that would just seem wrong to me, so wrong...
I agree with this sentiment. There are only 4 out of 13 classes that aren't inherently magical. Filling out those 4 with magical subclasses wouldn't be as fun. Even Totem barbs have magic but its ritual stuff that's more for flavor than an actual focus of the subclass.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
I'm still salty about the Gunslinger not being included in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. I would have given it all of my upvotes.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for the OneD&D playtest, I guess.
Oh, man, NO!!! Keep guns out of D&D please! I mean, as a cross-over adventure or something is one thing, but for the sake of Pete not core material! I am already not a fan of anything in Wildemount, sigh.

I think that does make more sense than the BM whose fun/effectiveness depends entirely on how often you get to short rest.

Because I (want to) like BM for the options it gives you. I don't so much like that you have to NOT take those options to be able to make any choices later.
Yeah, it seemed a bit silly to me to have it depend on a short rest. But, I feel a lot of features should be at-will, but made a bit weaker.

I agree with this sentiment. There are only 4 out of 13 classes that aren't inherently magical. Filling out those 4 with magical subclasses wouldn't be as fun. Even Totem barbs have magic but its ritual stuff that's more for flavor than an actual focus of the subclass.
Totally agree!
 

RoughCoronet0

Dragon Lover
Meanwhile I’ve been here trying to kill the Battle Master since the near beginning because it’s one of my least favorite fighters. 😁

I’d gladly take the Psi-Knight, Cavalier, or the Rune Knight over it any day.
 

W'rkncacnter

Adventurer
Totally disagree with this, and agree with @doctorbadwolf on it. 16 is all you need--you sure as heck don't need a 20 by level 8!

For myself (anyway), you need (or at least really want IME):
Tier 1: 14
Tier 2: 16
Tier 3: 18
Tier 4: 20

Do you need an 18 or 20 ever? No. But it is helpful at higher levels--at lower levels it is overkill and therefore I usually take half-feats so I slowly improve my ability score.
ok then, let me explain:
in 5e, you're expected to be hitting enemies about 60% of the time. of course, many DMs up enemy AC so you'll be hitting less then that - but the game was designed around hitting about 60% of the time, meaning you hit on an 8 or higher. that's the intent. and the encounter rules say that one creature of a CR equal to the party is a good fight for a party of 4 players.

the CR table shows this pretty well - CR 1 creatures have 13 AC (13-8=5, 5-2 (your proficiency bonus at level 1) is 3, which is almost certainly what your attack stat will be if using point buy/standard array). AC on the CR table only increases (by one, might i add) at levels 4 (ASI 1), 5 (prof bonus to +3), 8 (ASI 2), 10 (a level after prof bonus to +4 - idk why it doesn't increase at 9), 13 (prof bonus to +5), and 17 (prof bonus to +6). AC on the CR table never increases after this point.

this shows us two things - one, that multiclassing and magic items were absolutely not things WOTC accounted for when building the CR rules (but we already knew that), and two, that you are, by the game's fundamental encounter math, absolutely expected to get your attack stat to a 20 by level 8. this is what i say when you "need" your attack/casting stat to 20 by level 8 - sure, technically you can get away with not doing it, but you are literally behind the game's math (however flawed you think that math may be) if you do so.

(this is also, again, why i find it absolutely ridiculous that WOTC refuses to separate ASIs and feats for One D&D - they literally designed the game around having ASIs, yet are still forcing us to choose between making our characters unique and following the game's most basic encounter math - the math that THEY MADE. it's absolutely absurd.)
 


DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
ok then, let me explain:
in 5e, you're expected to be hitting enemies about 60% of the time. of course, many DMs up enemy AC so you'll be hitting less then that - but the game was designed around hitting about 60% of the time, meaning you hit on an 8 or higher. that's the intent. and the encounter rules say that one creature of a CR equal to the party is a good fight for a party of 4 players.

the CR table shows this pretty well - CR 1 creatures have 13 AC (13-8=5, 5-2 (your proficiency bonus at level 1) is 3, which is almost certainly what your attack stat will be if using point buy/standard array). AC on the CR table only increases (by one, might i add) at levels 4 (ASI 1), 5 (prof bonus to +3), 8 (ASI 2), 10 (a level after prof bonus to +4 - idk why it doesn't increase at 9), 13 (prof bonus to +5), and 17 (prof bonus to +6). AC on the CR table never increases after this point.

this shows us two things - one, that multiclassing and magic items were absolutely not things WOTC accounted for when building the CR rules (but we already knew that), and two, that you are, by the game's fundamental encounter math, absolutely expected to get your attack stat to a 20 by level 8. this is what i say when you "need" your attack/casting stat to 20 by level 8 - sure, technically you can get away with not doing it, but you are literally behind the game's math (however flawed you think that math may be) if you do so.

(this is also, again, why i find it absolutely ridiculous that WOTC refuses to separate ASIs and feats for One D&D - they literally designed the game around having ASIs, yet are still forcing us to choose between making our characters unique and following the game's most basic encounter math - the math that THEY MADE. it's absolutely absurd.)
Yeah, but lets look at what actually happens (using ACs from actual monsters in the books (over 800 of them, FWIW):

1664498950636.png


So, I've done an extensive analysis of this and that is why I said you don't need a 20 by level 8; you barely need an 18 really. Honestly, you can even "get away with" just having a 14 to start, but you'll feel the pinch if you don't bump it to 16 at 4th level... 🤷‍♂️

Anyway, this is why I can just take half-feats at 4th and 8th for +1 bump to modifier, and again at 12th and 16th for the last +1 bump. I've NEVER, EVER spent an ASI on a +2 to a single ability score and the math works just fine without it. ;)

EDIT: Here is the table starting with Ability 14 using the ACs for the CR = Level from the DMG:

1664499543777.png


As you can see, you can start with a 14, take the ASI +2 at 4th and 8th levels (at which point you'd have an 18, not 20), and hit your 60% or better all the time...
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top