Playtest (A5E) Level Up Playtest Document #2: Fighter

Welcome to the second Level Up playtest document. This playtest contains a candidate for the first 10 levels of game’s fighter class, and our new combat maneuvers system.

This playtest document begins to address three issues which you said were important in the survey we posted last month:

• Meaningful character choices at each advancement level
• A fully fleshed out exploration pillar*
• A range of martial maneuvers to give non-spellcasters more options in combat

*Exploration knacks, as introduced in this playtest document, only form part of the exploration pillar.

Download the playtest document

What this is
This is a playtest document. We’d love you to try out the rules presented here, and then answer the follow-up survey in a few days.

What this is not
This is NOT the final game. It’s OK if you don’t like elements of these rules; that’s the purpose of a playtest document. Be sure to participate in the follow-up survey in a few days. All data, positive or negative is useful.

What we use this for
Your survey responses help form the direction of the game as it goes through the development process.

Don’t forget!
Sign up for the mailing list for notifications of playtests, surveys, and news, and to make sure you get notified on Kickstarter when the project launches in 2021.

Continue reading...

 

[RSIxidor]

Like last time, I'm curious how far you can break from the 5E norms. I was hoping we wouldn't see any archetype choices past level 1. For most classes, they are so defining for the character build that I've always hated them being level 2 or 3 for some classes. It's more of a small complaint than a real issue, though.

Protection fighting style is still meh. TWF is still going to be the same as it was, I take it, based on the fighting style not changing? Also meh, IMO.

Manuevers being core to the Fighter class is +++

Burst of Strength could use an exertion option, maybe? Maybe just the option to use it if you've used it already since your last rest? Kind of like the sorcery point stuff we saw in some of the UA articles.

Minor advantage/disadvantage is weird, I don't care for it. Advantage as presented in 5E is plain and simple, this just seems like unnecessary extra steps.

EDIT: Exploration Knacks are a great idea. I feel like I mostly focused on negative above, but I actually am mostly thinking positively about this vision of the fighter as someone who actually does things other than hurt the enemy.

 

[TwoSix]

I am curious how to adjudicate a case where the character has both advantage AND minor disadvantage (and vice versa).

 

[Morrus]

I am curious how to adjudicate a case where the character has both advantage AND minor disadvantage (and vice versa).

The last sentence of the sidebar answers that question.

 

[R_J_K75]

You should read the wizard! It has like 50 pages of spells!

I'm sure I'll give it a once over. That's 50 pages for just wizard spells, not including all the other spellcasting classes?

 

[Undrave]

IK really wish you would come up with new Fighting styles. I feel like every keyword on the Weapons table should have a Fighting style attached to it. There should even be one that key off 'simple weapons'.

3) Manuevers. Love the names of the schools. Was a little confused about the words under the schools, at first I thought they were keywords, not adjectives. My only critique is that I don't like how the exertion points scale in two different manners, once from proficiency bonus and also from the Reserves class features. If the points need to scale in a non-linear manner, I'd rather see that as another column in the class description.

22 pages for 10 levels of 1 class seems a bit long. I'm sure this has to do with it being a playtest pdf and not formatted for the actual book. Parts just seemed overly wordy to me.

I'm guessing that other Martial and Martial-adjacent classes will have Exertion Points and access to maneuvers. The Fighter gets bonus Exertion as class features, taking the place of other features a Paladin or Ranger might get, while the others will just scale on their proficiency bonus.

And the playlets is long because the Maneuver section is basically the equivalent of a Spell section.

 

[Morrus]

I'm sure I'll give it a once over. That's 50 pages for just wizard spells, not including all the other spellcasting classes?

I was talking about the PHB.

 

[TwoSix]

The last sentence of the sidebar answers that question.

Overlooked it, thanks!

 

[Mike Myler]

Just one that stood out immediately, the Charge maneuver does nothing...in fact it actually hurts the fighter. A fighter can already move 30 feet and make all of their attacks.

A fighter can use their movement, then make an attack. Charge lets a fighter use their movement, then move 30 feet, and make an attack.
What action are you thinking of that lets you move 30 feet and make an attack as part of the same action?

 

[TwoSix]

IK really wish you would come up with new Fighting styles. I feel like every keyword on the Weapons table should have a Fighting style attached to it. There should even be one that key off 'simple weapons'.

I was thinking it would be cool if each of those descriptive words under the style names (Distance, Flowing, Legion, etc) had one maneuver per level, and you could build your own Fighting Style by combining any 3.

 

[TwoSix]

A fighter can use their movement, then make an attack. Charge lets a fighter use their movement, then move 30 feet, and make an attack.
What action are you thinking of that lets you move 30 feet and make an attack as part of the same action?

Fairly technical question; I know techniques can be used as attack replacements during an Attack option, which makes sense. Do maneuvers that count as "Actions" also count as the Attack action for purposes of abilities that require an Attack option? (I'm thinking specifically of two weapon fighting, or feats like Shield Master.)