Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7831349" data-attributes="member: 20323">[USER=6788732]@cbwjm[/USER] Thanks for the kind words. The issue there was word count – the "warrior" had grown longer than the cleric or wizard classes.[USER=22103]@GlassJaw[/USER] The move I tried before – and it seems like you're kicking off the brainstorm with a similar move – is to provide a list of non-combat options akin to the Warlock's Eldritch Invocations? Something like at every # number of levels this alternate version of the Fighter gets to choose one?Eldritch Invocations are an eclectic grab-bag – a mix of themes, combat, and non-combat – but there are a couple trends that they have in common:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Invocations tend not to step on the toes of feats, though some skate that edge. Assuming you want to maintain that design principle, that means your example Nightwatchman – which steps on the toes of the Skulker feat – would not be a good candidate for inclusion.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Invocations tend not to grant proficiency, expertise, or advantage on ability checks (with two exceptions: Beguiling Influence & Cloak of Flies). I believe this is intentional design to preserve the Rogue as the "skill monkey." Sounds like that's a design principle you also want to stick to?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Several Invocations grant spells off the warlock's spell list. There's no parallel for the fighter here, is there? If a player wants a spellcasting fighter they can either be an Eldritch Knight, or take the Magic Initiate feat, or multiclass.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Five Invocations build on the eldritch blast cantrip. A fighter parallel would be building off a basic attack, Disarm, Grapple, or Shove. However, this would contradict your focus on non-combat abilities, so not sure if there's a good fighter parallel that fits.</li> </ul>This significantly restricts the design space for fighter non-combat abilities modeled after Eldritch Invocations. They can't emulate feats, enhance or provide proficiency in skills, provide spellcasting, or enhance basic attacks. So that means you're looking at secondary systems in the game, which are heavily weighted toward exploration btw (e.g. dehydration/starvation, encumbrance, and so forth)...and the Ranger's Natural Explorer already interacts with some of these, further limiting the design space. And the only social system I see that rules could interact with (and still follow the guidelines for Invocations) is the friendly/indifferent/hostile "status" of NPCs.</blockquote>

Verification