D&D 5E General feelings about new UA archetypes

[Ganymede81]

Incidentally in my feedback I proposed to merge Samurai and Knight since they are basically both noble warriors and both are lacklusters with unique features IMHO.

I'd suggest we both merge the Samurai and Knight into the preexisting Battlemaster archetype; they are both, thematically, different types of Battlemasters anyways.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd suggest we both merge the Samurai and Knight into the preexisting Battlemaster archetype; they are both, thematically, different types of Battlemasters anyways.

In concept, perhaps (indeed, you could just have a Samurai or Knight background and play a battlemaster or champion with it, perhaps with implied features of the background, like kirisute gomen or dispensing Low Justice) but, mechanically, I don't see how the BM could absorb the mechanics of either archetype.

 

[Ganymede81]

I meant that knights and samurai, as students of the science of combat, are already well described by the battlemaster. The archetype even allows the knight or samurai to be proficient in repairing armor, calligraphy, or maybe even tea ceremonies.

As for their mechanics, I'd wager they don't fit well anyways. Nothing about the Samurai's mechanics harkens back to the titular retainers of feudal Japan;everything is just willpower themed, which feels oddly out of place.

 

[Li Shenron]

I meant that knights and samurai, as students of the science of combat, are already well described by the battlemaster. The archetype even allows the knight or samurai to be proficient in repairing armor, calligraphy, or maybe even tea ceremonies.

As for their mechanics, I'd wager they don't fit well anyways. Nothing about the Samurai's mechanics harkens back to the titular retainers of feudal Japan;everything is just willpower themed, which feels oddly out of place.

I think their concept is quite different from "students of combat". That to me is the concept of FIGHTER, as opposed to merely "good at combat" which can apply to all classes.

Instead to me Knights and Samurais are more like "noble educated warriors", with courtly abilities and cultural knowledge. And I think the UA drafts show the same ideas.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

As examples of class design, I really like them.

As play material, we treat them with caution because, as they state, they still require testing.

So my general feelings towards the articles are.. ..mauve. Tho I'm still magenta with regards to the ranger stuff. Would be nice to get some urban goodness in there, simply to read their take and compare it to how I'm running one.

 

[Ashkelon]

They all feel boring for the most part. I want new mechanics. I want new ideas. I want something truly exciting. These new archetypes don't really do that for me. They tend to be nothing more than rehashes of the same old 5e mechanics.

 

[Ganymede81]

I think their concept is quite different from "students of combat". That to me is the concept of FIGHTER, as opposed to merely "good at combat" which can apply to all classes.

Instead to me Knights and Samurais are more like "noble educated warriors", with courtly abilities and cultural knowledge. And I think the UA drafts show the same ideas.

I did not say "students of combat." I said "students of the science of combat." It is a crucial distinction.

I was reflecting this passage in the description of the Battlemaster: "To a Battle Master, combat is an academic field, sometimes including subjects beyond battle such as weaponsmithing and calligraphy. Not every fighter absorbs the lessons of history, theory, and artistry that are reflected in the Battle Master archetype, but those who do are well-rounded fighters of great skill and knowledge."

You are right in that they are "noble" in that, if you are a Knight or Samurai, you probably have some variation of the Noble background. Otherwise, you're describing the Battlemaster all over again.

 

[Colder]

It's OK to have variations on a theme, you know. It's perfectly fine to make a samurai/knight using the Battle Master right now, and it will still be perfectly fine to make a samurai/knight using the Battle Master in a world in which subclasses named Knight and Samurai exist.

But I can't stand when people object to playtest material simply because it can be thematically similar to what's available in the PHB. If that's our only metric then we'll never get a new Fighter subclass because the 3 that we have are generic enough to be virtually any combat specialist.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

On the whole, I could do without them. I thought the Monk’s Path of Tranquility was really inventive and could dramatically change the way one plays a monk. But others, like the Awakened Mystic, Arcane Archer, and Knight, have me dreading their appearance in officially printed materials.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I meant that knights and samurai, as students of the science of combat, are already well described by the battlemaster.

I think their concept is quite different from "students of combat". That to me is the concept of FIGHTER, as opposed to merely "good at combat" which can apply to all classes.

Instead to me Knights and Samurais are more like "noble educated warriors", with courtly abilities and cultural knowledge. And I think the UA drafts show the same ideas.

The Knight and Samurai archetypes as presented certainly have a nod (and a skill-proficiency-granting ability) towards the 'educated warrior' idea, and existing backgrounds can fill in more of the noble part. But they're not 'students of the science of combat' either mechanically or conceptually. They really seem more like different takes on how fighters /feel/ about combat. Yeah, that's pretty soft. What I mean is, the Samurai is all willpower and no-defeat-only-victory-or-death (and that last not without some final blows for victory), while the knight is a chivalric defender of the weak. Their more dramatic combat-focused abilities reflect those differences, and paint them very differently from the BM.