log in or register to remove this ad

 

Blog (A5E) Keeping it Classy: Updated Core Classes in Level Up


log in or register to remove this ad


timespike

Adventurer
Yeah, the multiple eldritch shapes thing is pretty awesome. I'm also a big fan of the points-based casting for them. We've got a warlock in my Saturday group, and while she's very effective, she has complained that the class gets kinda repetitive in play.
 

Stalker0

Legend
Hmm, does Eldritch Scthye allow for reach?

Since it doesn't mention it I would assume no, but considering that most people would think of a scythe as a reach weapon, and the effect only requires you to make a melee weapon attack, not "an attack against an enemy within 5 feet"....you could make the case for it. Though I think the fact that eldritch whip does specifically say "up to 15 feet" probably shuts down that argument.

Personally I say go for it, I think the blade needs every bit of help against the ray and the whip it can get to say competitive. Assuming there is another creature in range, you are only doing an average of 1 point more damage than the eldritch ray.... the damage is diffused across 2 creatures (which makes it weaker), and obviously you don't have the 120 foot range. And the whip has reach and defense and offense...pretty darn solid.
 
Last edited:

Zeta Marishi

Villager
Technically the Eldritch Scythe, as written, does have a possibly unintended downside.

If there is one enemy and multiple players, it reads as you needing to pick one of your allies and smacking them for half that damage.

I assume this isn't intended, but that should probably be fixed.
 

Stalker0

Legend
Can you OA with Eldritch Whip/Scythe?

It looks like you can with Scythe as an OA is just as good as any other melee attack...though I think that means you couldn't use it on your next turn (I always forget how "once per turn" effects work with reactions). Whip has no clause, and as a spell attack I would assume you could not.
 

This Effin’ GM

Adventurer
Can you OA with Eldritch Whip/Scythe?

It looks like you can with Scythe as an OA is just as good as any other melee attack...though I think that means you couldn't use it on your next turn (I always forget how "once per turn" effects work with reactions). Whip has no clause, and as a spell attack I would assume you could not.
Turn means creatures specific turn on an initiative count. Round encompasses the entirety of everyone’s turns combined.

The way scythe is written an opportunity attack should be able to work just fine. The only time you really would be limited by use is if somehow you got an opportunity attack on your own turn. And limited by reactions per round.
 

lichmaster

Explorer
If the playtest is any indication, certain classes can only pull from certain traditions for their maneuvers. Fighters have no such limitation and have extra exertion like the Adept does. They also get their own unique social features as well, like Steely Mien.
The question for me is: why are the other classes limited in the traditions?

I don't find any plausible reason for that, other than "well, instead to give something to the fighter, let's take it away from everyone else".

I'll read the material, but probably that limitation is something I'll remove from day 1, and if it means the fighter becomes less interesting, it just proves my point above
 

Faolyn

Hero
The question for me is: why are the other classes limited in the traditions?

I don't find any plausible reason for that, other than "well, instead to give something to the fighter, let's take it away from everyone else".

I'll read the material, but probably that limitation is something I'll remove from day 1, and if it means the fighter becomes less interesting, it just proves my point above
Classes are limited to what traditions are thematic for them. For instance, rogues get access to Biting Zephyr (ranged attacks), Mist and Shade (sneaky and deceptive attacks), and Rapid Current (highly mobile, rapid attacks). The other traditions aren't properly rogue-like, and I think it's safe to say that if you wanted to play a big, muscular rogue who relied on Strength-based attacks (and therefore had access to Adamant Mountain maneuvers), it'd be more sensible to multiclass to fighter (or barbarian).

Likewise, rangers have access to Biting Zephyr and Mist and Shade, because ranged attacks and skirmishes are very much in-theme for rangers. They also have access to Razor's Edge (attacks that rely on concentration and very high skill), Spirited Steed (mounted combat), and Unending Wheel (weapon mastery), and again, those are very in-theme. Heralds have access to Spirited Steed, Sanguine Knot (teamwork/army-based attacks), and Tempered Iron (attacks that are based on your personal faith and conviction).

Each of the other classes that has maneuvers (including adept, berserker, and marshal) also has thematic limitations. So basically, if you remove that limitation--which sure, you can--you're also taking away from the flavor of those classes.
 



Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Well, it should be noted that there are a lot of maneuvers that effectively grant extra attacks.
this
Once per short rest at the cost of delaying progression in, you know, magic for two levels. It just never bothered me.

I guess it just never struck me as a "cheesy" multiclass.
They multi-class because level dipping with all its issues is live and well in 5e.

However having the mechanically "best" melee capable defender/protector likely be a 85 percent caster with 3 levels of Barbarian, I find a bit annoying.
 

This Effin’ GM

Adventurer
this

They multi-class because level dipping with all its issues is live and well in 5e.

However having the mechanically "best" melee capable defender/protector likely be a 85 percent caster with 3 levels of Barbarian, I find a bit annoying.
I was just earlier today explaining to my wife that the most effective smiting paladin is basically a dip in paladin and then sorcerer all the rest of the way.

“Wait what? Why would people do that?”

“Basically: Same reason all your archers take a few levels in rogue rather than go straight fighter”

“Ah. Yup. Love me some cunning action sneak attack archery”
 

timespike

Adventurer
The question for me is: why are the other classes limited in the traditions?

I don't find any plausible reason for that, other than "well, instead to give something to the fighter, let's take it away from everyone else".

I'll read the material, but probably that limitation is something I'll remove from day 1, and if it means the fighter becomes less interesting, it just proves my point above
Do you give all of your spellcasters access to the entire selection of spells, too? That's a pretty good analogy for what you're suggesting here.

Fighters are very much the exception with having access to all the combat schools. The "normal" state of affairs is to have access to a limited set of maneuvers (much like spellcasters have access to a limited set of spells). Working within those constrained palettes definitely helps the flavor of the martial classes, too. It would be pretty odd for a "normal" adept to have access to the Tooth and Claw (savage, animalistic attacks) or Spirited Steed (cavalry maneuvers) combat schools because Adepts are presented as highly-trained, disciplined people who have put a lot of effort into perfecting their own bodies and weapon skills through extensive practice. Sheer, animalistic fury (Tooth and Claw) doesn't fit that baseline, and neither does relying on another creature for mobility and striking force (Spirited Steed). Now, could there be a specific archetype that granted access to one of these combat schools? Sure! But that would be a special thing about that archetype, much like getting access to all those cool fire spells is for the Light Domain in O5E. If every cleric (or every spellcaster, period) could already cast every spell, there'd not be much point in even having subclasses, or, for that matter, even different classes at all.

It's not a perfect analogy, of course, because there's no spellcasting class that gets access to the full spell list, but even among the primary casters, it's pretty obvious that the wizard gets a larger slice of the spell list pie than the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, or warlock does. That's because the thing that makes wizards special is that they are better at raw, straight-up knowing of magic than anyone else. The same is true for the A5E fighter with regards to maneuvers. They don't have the rage and hit points of a berserker. They don't have the speed and crazy traversal abilities of an adept. They don't have the divine powers of a herald. The don't have the political connections of a marshal. They don't have the survival and tracking training of a ranger, and they don't have the stealthiness of a rogue. But what they do have is a level of sheer martial expertise that nobody else does. To reference a cringey old internet meme: "While you were learning to wall run, I studied the blade. While you were learning to throw truly epic temper tantrums, I studied the blade. While you were learning your prayer book, I studied the blade. While you were reading Machiavelli, I studied the blade. While you made fires out of sticks and snuck around back alleys, I studied the blade."

THAT is the fighter. The palace guard, the lone samurai, the Spartan at the Hot Gates, the hardened mercenary who has killed more people than you've met in your life.

The other classes can do things the fighter can't, but when it comes to actually fighting, well, look at what it says on the tin. They don't have to rely on getting mad, having superhuman abilities, calling on a higher power, having people to order around, being able to outlast you in the wilderness, or getting the drop on you to beat you down. They can, and will, take you down with nothing but a weapon and their peerless skill at using it. Their free choice of maneuvers is designed to depict just how deep and/or broad that training is in comparison to the other classes that can fight, but split their focus in one way or another.
 
Last edited:

lichmaster

Explorer
Do you give all of your spellcasters access to the entire selection of spells, too? That's a pretty good analogy for what you're suggesting here.

Fighters are very much the exception with having access to all the combat schools. The "normal" state of affairs is to have access to a limited set of maneuvers (much like spellcasters have access to a limited set of spells). Working within those constrained palettes definitely helps the flavor of the martial classes, too. It would be pretty odd for a "normal" adept to have access to the Tooth and Claw (savage, animalistic attacks) or Spirited Steed (cavalry maneuvers) combat schools because Adepts are presented as highly-trained, disciplined people who have put a lot of effort into perfecting their own bodies and weapon skills through extensive practice. Sheer, animalistic fury (Tooth and Claw) doesn't fit that baseline, and neither does relying on another creature for mobility and striking force (Spirited Steed). Now, could there be a specific archetype that granted access to one of these combat schools? Sure! But that would be a special thing about that archetype, much like getting access to all those cool fire spells is for the Light Domain in O5E. If every cleric (or every spellcaster, period) could already cast every spell, there'd not be much point in even having subclasses, or, for that matter, even different classes at all.

It's not a perfect analogy, of course, because there's no spellcasting class that gets access to the full spell list, but even among the primary casters, it's pretty obvious that the wizard gets a larger slice of the spell list pie than the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, or warlock does. That's because the thing that makes wizards special is that they are better at raw, straight-up knowing of magic than anyone else. The same is true for the A5E fighter with regards to maneuvers. They don't have the rage and hit points of a berserker. They don't have the speed and crazy traversal abilities of an adept. They don't have the divine powers of a herald. The don't have the political connections of a marshal. They don't have the survival and tracking training of a ranger, and they don't have the stealthiness of a rogue. But what they do have is a level of sheer martial expertise that nobody else does. To reference a cringey old internet meme: "While you were learning to wall run, I studied the blade. While you were learning to throw truly epic temper tantrums, I studied the blade. While you were learning your prayer book, I studied the blade. While you were reading Machiavelli, I studied the blade. While you made fires out of sticks and snuck around back alleys, I studied the blade."

THAT is the fighter. The palace guard, the lone samurai, the Spartan at the Hot Gates, the hardened mercenary who has killed more people than you've met in your life.

The other classes can do things the fighter can't, but when it comes to actually fighting, well, look at what it says on the tin. They don't have to rely on getting mad, having superhuman abilities, calling on a higher power, having people to order around, being able to outlast you in the wilderness, or getting the drop on you to beat you down. They can, and will, take you down with nothing but a weapon and their peerless skill at using it. Their free choice of maneuvers is designed to depict just how deep and/or broad that training is in comparison to the other classes that can fight, but split their focus in one way or another.
The analogy is really far from the point. Sorcerers are not restricted in spell schools wrt wizards. Neither are Warlocks, bards, druids or clerics.
Sure, there are some individual spells that are in a school but that a caster cannot take, yet they aren't barred from all spells of that school.
This instead is exactly what happens with combat traditions.

The restriction is also cheesable by dipping 1 level in fighter: once i take 1 level in fighter, I should have access to all maneuvers. Maybe I cannot take all maneuvers from all traditions (there's no mention about this yet in the disclosed material), but surely at least for that level you have full flexibility.

Regarding the fighter, for what I read in the preview material and comparing it to the other classes in the preview and the adept just posted, it feels really subpar. It doesn't feel an unparalleled master of any weapon, because there's no particular features that directly improve weapon use. It doesn't have the same staying power of a barbarian (rage, hit points) or probably even a paladin (spells and lay on hands). It just has a few more maneuvers, but curiously less effort than an equal level adept. The adept itself can get level 5 traditions, and I bet the same will happen with the barbarian and the paladin, so we cannot even say that he is the only one able to pull off those high level stunts.
What is the shtick of the fighter, then?

I agree that traditions as written have a link with the base class, but this clashes with the reasoning behind calling the paladin a "herald", or the monk "an adept": it forces a description. Tarzan could well be an adept with maneuvers from Tooth and Claw tradition, more than a barbarian.
 

King Brad

Explorer
The analogy is really far from the point. Sorcerers are not restricted in spell schools wrt wizards. Neither are Warlocks, bards, druids or clerics.
Sure, there are some individual spells that are in a school but that a caster cannot take, yet they aren't barred from all spells of that school.
This instead is exactly what happens with combat traditions.

The restriction is also cheesable by dipping 1 level in fighter: once i take 1 level in fighter, I should have access to all maneuvers. Maybe I cannot take all maneuvers from all traditions (there's no mention about this yet in the disclosed material), but surely at least for that level you have full flexibility.

Regarding the fighter, for what I read in the preview material and comparing it to the other classes in the preview and the adept just posted, it feels really subpar. It doesn't feel an unparalleled master of any weapon, because there's no particular features that directly improve weapon use. It doesn't have the same staying power of a barbarian (rage, hit points) or probably even a paladin (spells and lay on hands). It just has a few more maneuvers, but curiously less effort than an equal level adept. The adept itself can get level 5 traditions, and I bet the same will happen with the barbarian and the paladin, so we cannot even say that he is the only one able to pull off those high level stunts.
What is the shtick of the fighter, then?

I agree that traditions as written have a link with the base class, but this clashes with the reasoning behind calling the paladin a "herald", or the monk "an adept": it forces a description. Tarzan could well be an adept with maneuvers from Tooth and Claw tradition, more than a barbarian.
I don't think any answer they give is going to appease you. They gave you the reasoning. You can either accept it, or assuming you buy it, house rule it away. It's not the end of the world and for the most part, everyone who has seen it understands it.
 

lichmaster

Explorer
I don't think any answer they give is going to appease you. They gave you the reasoning. You can either accept it, or assuming you buy it, house rule it away. It's not the end of the world and for the most part, everyone who has seen it understands it.
I don't want to be appeased. I just wanted to understand if there's anything else the fighter gets to make it cool. It's a class I love in o5e, and in isolation I know it will even be better in a5e. But given the excellent design choices/overhauls of the other classes and the fact that all melee classes will have access to several traditions, it seems to me that the fighter will be more a jack of all trades (traditions) than special on its own. That's all.
 

This Effin’ GM

Adventurer
I don't want to be appeased. I just wanted to understand if there's anything else the fighter gets to make it cool. It's a class I love in o5e, and in isolation I know it will even be better in a5e. But given the excellent design choices/overhauls of the other classes and the fact that all melee classes will have access to several traditions, it seems to me that the fighter will be more a jack of all trades (traditions) than special on its own. That's all.
It seems that what makes combat special in A5E is going to be combat maneuvers and stances. These add versatility to each martial class. Not only will the fighter have access to more, they will straight up have more. They will be the most versatile combat class, most easily shifting and combining to the greatest effect.

Personally, that’s exactly what I think a fighter should be. You want rakish duelist? Play rogue or fighter. Greatest archer? Ranger or fighter. Swing the biggest axe? Barbarian or fighter. Need to do all three? Look no further than the fighter.


I was also shocked at the loss of action surge but a lot of what seems to be happening in the design of A5E is that each class has abilities that can’t be reached via dip. Eldritch blast is based purely on warlock level, not taking a quick dip to get the cantrip. I can’t imagine a one or two level dip of fighter is going to going to have the same oomph with fighter based stances and maneuvers than a straight fighter is going to allow, nor what Action Surge was able to get us before with a quick dip.

I could be wrong but they specifically called out that they were trying to make dips less attractive on fighter and this was the reasoning for getting rid of action surge. I truly doubt the story stops at flat removal.

edit: I do agree though, this article didn’t do much to instil that confidence. My first words to my friend about it were “I'm nervous about the loss of action surge, as they don't in the article seem to mention what the fighter gets in return, just that it gets ‘stuff’”
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I agree that traditions as written have a link with the base class, but this clashes with the reasoning behind calling the paladin a "herald", or the monk "an adept": it forces a description. Tarzan could well be an adept with maneuvers from Tooth and Claw tradition, more than a barbarian.
Agreed with the Tarzan thought...for character design flexibility allows one to express a character in a manner that fits your vision of them. That said 05e emphasized multi-classing being optional and left what I think of as traps and other over valuable dips in place. Level up sounds like one of its goals included making multi-classing less extreme in its effects. That taking some fighter to get martially specific flexibility does not really sound like a huge issue, compare it to 2 level dip for action surge.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I don't want to be appeased. I just wanted to understand if there's anything else the fighter gets to make it cool. It's a class I love in o5e, and in isolation I know it will even be better in a5e. But given the excellent design choices/overhauls of the other classes and the fact that all melee classes will have access to several traditions, it seems to me that the fighter will be more a jack of all trades (traditions) than special on its own. That's all.
Action surge I do definitely agree is also a potent pop out of awesome it was even better as the action point mechanic in the previous edition and was earned/acquired the more intense the day was in terms of encounters too... It has been noted that many maneuvers in level up enable an extra attack of some sort.

If I understand correctly

Cleave for 2 pts and at higher Rank Wild Swing (1 pt) for instance.

When you have 2 attacks that could be 4 attacks actually launched.

When you have 3 attacks that could be 6 attacks launched.

and so on.

It appears to me they moved the main for the fighter used functionality of action surge... to maneuvers.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top