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...

 

[Morrus]

seems like a dick move to design the fighter for all the people saying "fighter sux!" rather than the people saying "fighter rules!"

Completely inappropriate. If you want to swan around insulting people, find some other measageboard to do it.

 

[Waller]

looks like the fighter is going down the 4th Ed and Pathfinder 2nd ed route of forced complexity rather than chosen complexity

seems like a dick move to design the fighter for all the people saying "fighter sux!" rather than the people saying "fighter rules!"
specially as fighter is the most popular class according the dndbeyond by a goodly margin. Followed by the equally simple rogue

If you're not interested in a more complex version of 5E why are you posting in a subforum about the playtests for a more complex version of 5E? It's literally the design goal.

 

[Maxperson]

Steely Mien? Anyone wearing a full helm is going to claim this.

Despite the name, the wording of Closed Helm doesn't indicate that any helm is being worn. It's that the face is an unreadable mask.

Every poker player is going to want to be a Fighter now.

 

[Faolyn]

Why are there still Martial Archetypes? With everything else added to the class why not just take all the sub class archetypes abilities and let players pick those abilities at those particular levels too?

Well, most of the archetypes are basically specializations that go beyond mere fighting ability. I think that the fighter class described in this doc kind of replaces both the Champion and the Battlemaster, but it doesn't replace the magic of the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Archer, or Echo Knight, the courtly ties of the Samurai and Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret, or the mounted combat of the Cavalier. I think the specializations are important for both flavor and to discourage minmaxers.

(Also, this is supposed to be backwards compatible; this is 5.5e, not 6e, so they can't just dump the archetypes.)

 

[Morrus]

Why are there still Martial Archetypes?

Archetypes are super popular, but one of the things we'll be asking in the fighter playtest survey is exactly that specific question.

 

[Quartz]

Welcome to the second Level Up playtest document.

I really, really, dislike Minor Advantage / Disadvantage. KISS applies. Get rid of them, bury them, and never mention them again. Damnatio memoriae.

 

[Maxperson]

I really, really, dislike Minor Advantage / Disadvantage. KISS applies. Get rid of them, bury them, and never mention them again. Damnatio memoriae.

 

[Morrus]

I really, really, dislike Minor Advantage / Disadvantage. KISS applies. Get rid of them, bury them, and never mention them again. Damnatio memoriae.

Survey will be out in a couple of days. If everybody agrees with you, we’ll likely change it. We hope people will try it first.

 

[Faolyn]

I decided to poll my friends re the minor (dis)ads, and the two who've responded don't really like it. One, however, suggested just adding or subtracting a dX from the roll instead. That particular mechanic is used already (bless, dragonmarked houses, etc.) and would be pretty useful. And perhaps then (if you wanted to get grainy) you can have different levels of minor (dis)ad: d4, d6, or d8.

When the survey comes out, I'll recommend that.

 

[Morrus]

I decided to poll my friends re the minor (dis)ads, and the two who've responded don't really like it.

Get them to take the survey to make sure their views are counted. But please try the mechanic first. We’re very much interested in playtest feedback.