Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 8402698" data-attributes="member: 7030563">I think the class here is way more  powerful than the current 5E class and will outshine all other martials (including Rogues) by quite a bit.   I like a few of the ideas, but I think they need to be reworked in terms of power.  Here are my comments FWIW:Iron GuardI think Bulwark needs some tweaking.  First state the dodge has to be taken as an action and no other actions are allowed on that turn except bonus action.  This avoids the abuse you would get by combining it with haste, action surge or a Monk multiclass.Second, eliminate "You gain a saving throw against any spells or effects which would cause automatic damage "The idea of automatic damage is it is automatic.  If I use this I can jump off a cliff and save to avoid falling damage, I can decide to swim through lava and save to avoid fire damage.  I can save to avoid damage from booming blade or hex .....The other two are fine.ParlayThe reaction attack is good.  The rest of it is essentially four free skill proficiencies (Deception, Persuasion, Performance and Intimidation).  This infringes quite a bit on the Rogue and Bard, almost to the point of making those classes irrelevant.I think if you want to add your proficiency bonus to charisma skills, a more balanced approach is to include all of these charisma skills in the fighter pool and let him choose them instead of other skills.  Then with the right background you could get all of them if that is the fighter you want to be.So if you want to be the noble everyman you can be by  selecting those skills.  If you want to be the cruel mercenary working for slave traders you can be that instead.I think your reasoning here is going against the grain in terms of the direction the game is going.  Certainly this castle-owning lord type was a part  of being a fighter in AD&D but I think that represents a  medieval trope and the designers are trying to move away from those stereotypes and to more diversity in each class.Warriors MultiattackThe proficiency bonus number of attacks is ok, but I would limit it to once per short rest.Not needing reactions to make an OA is a big problem with bounded accuracy, the maximum number of OAs you should ever be able to make is 1.Weapon ExpertiseFor balance reasons these should not be a class feature IMO.  I think they make more sense as battlemaster maneuvers with a use limit.  I would substitute the battlemaster damage dice for the weapon damage dice on attacks that hit multiple targets though and I would require more than one dice to be used on attacks that hit more  than  one target.Power StrikeWith bounded accuracy, the damage here should be 1d6 not full weapon damage.Fortitude This should be scrapped IMO.  Diamond soul should be more powerful than indomitable because the fighter deals a lot more damage than a monk of similar level, has more hit points and a better AC.  I think you can work this into a homebrew feat that any class can take, but I would limit uses per dayImproved Fighting StyleI think a better option is to allow an additional fighting style.  Also Paladins and Rangers do not select from the same styles, unarmed combat and blind fighting are unique to fighters already.  Superior technique is also unique to fighters I think and this is the "master of combat" vibe lacking in the other classes.  I think TCE really upped the game so that everyone can benefit substantially from an additional fighting style and I think that would be preferable to an improved style.  LegendaryThese should require a reaction to use IMO.</blockquote>

Verification