Unearthed Arcana New Year Unearthed Arcana Brings Back Those Old 2E Kits

The scout fighter looks like yet another take at a ranger, but one I'm personally more likely to use. For the Cavalier I might want some more feature related to social interaction, not just the horse part and a proficiency. Something along the lines of what the Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight got in SCAG or a new use of superiority dice.

The bard colleges seem nice, but "Tumble" might have a bit too many benefits compared to Rogue Cunning Action.

 

[SailorNash]

Agreed. I was using the Fighter subclasses as those were the most blatant examples, but Sword Bard is almost as bad. If in my mind I can't see the difference between a Valor Bard or a Sword Bard, then the subclass could use some work to make it stand out more. Or, those options could better be written as something else other than a subclass.

Jester, for example, immediately strikes me as different enough to be worth of it's own distinction...after that, it's a matter of adding whatever mechanics best encapsulate that "feel". Sword Bard has different mechanics but the same flavor as Valor Bard. Cavalier and Scout have different flavors but the same mechanics as Battlemaster.

One thing I hadn't considered at first about making the new Fighter abilites maneuvers? That would allow others to take them via feat. I don't think anyone would be happy there...Fighters would lose the one cool thing their subclass gives them, and everyone else would be spending double the "feat tax" to take that plus Mounted Combat (for example). As written they look like maneuvers, and wouldn't be bad ones to have in the general pile. But for strong concepts like Scout and Cavalier they'd probably be best served with their own abilities.

Of all these, I do think Sword Bard worries me the most. In 3rd Ed, instead of just Rogues for example, we had every manner of thief, cutpurse, bandit, robber, treasure hunter, and highwayman. Same with most other classes. Without strong concepts to differentiate them, they all come across as multiple ways to model the same thing. Leads to a more clunky system at best, or possible abuse at worst depending on what and how these things stack.

 

[Jester David]

Cavalier Thought:

Born to the Saddle is a rather small benefit. Couldn't that work as a Fighting Style available also to rangers and paladins? They might want to fight on a mount and could use something (especially the pally), and it makes level 3 cavalier less heavy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Cavalier Thought:

Born to the Saddle is a rather small benefit. Couldn't that work as a Fighting Style available also to rangers and paladins? They might want to fight on a mount and could use something (especially the pally), and it makes level 3 cavalier less heavy.

I think that a mounted fighting style is probably overdue. It's a classic Fighter image, and Paladins truck in that mounted knight image too, and there's no reason to deny the Ranger the "I am friends with my horse" archetype.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The main problem with adding ANYTHING mounted is that it either
a) sucks because you never get to use it and when you can use it it is nothing special.
b) alternately sucks because you can't use it or is overpowered because you can.

So instead of making something that works only on horseback, make something that works always and synergizes with being on horseback. Which is why I'd prefer scrapping the lance-bonus-damage-trip combo maneuver and born to the saddle in favour of something more generic, and allowing a generic defender maneuver.

 

[Mephista]

SD can be a hammer, and when every potential new fighter subclass looks like a nail, there's little thought given to how this would look and work if you removed SD from the equation, or dramatically changed how they worked. There's no innovation, no new play experience, just the BM with a new coat of paint.

Seriously, we've got 3 subclasses without superiority dice. Where does this sudden fear we're going to use superiority dice for every single subclass from now on?

I want mechanics that match the fiction, which means that playing a tactical master like the BM should feel different from playing a courageous cavalier or a mobile scout. In combat, I don't need to be making decisions about allocating resources, I need to be charging into melee or setting up an ambush. It shouldn't be a tactical decision (Do I charge into combat, or something else?), it should be just what I do ("I charge into combat. Stuff happens.").

So glad you know that the subclasses can't feel like a cavalier or scout without playing them at all, or trying out their features. I look at the pdf, and I see plenty of "charge into combat!" and skirmisher abilities. Without referencing the superiority dice at all, can you explain how the cavalier isn't goign to be charging into combat on a mount? Or the scout isn't using stealth and skirmishing? Because that's what they clearly look like they're doing to me.

It sounds like your complaint is more "Gods sltarn it! I want another simple, mindless Fighter!" Because what you're actually saying doesn't seem to make sense - you're exaggerating things into strawmen and charactures.

 

[SkidAce]

I converted my homebrew "Elven Swordmasters" to a BM base almost right away as 5E came out. It made sense to me that I could create "subclasses" of NPCs or PCs that trained a certain way, i.e. certain maneuvers.

Elven Swordmaster
Fighter (Battlemaster) base.

Dueling Fighting Style
Trained in use of Elven thinblade

Standard Swordmaster Maneuvers: Evasive Footwork, Precision Attack, Riposte.

So now if a character goes and trains with the Swordmasters in the course of play, they could either take the Martial Adept feat to dabble in the elven technique, or take levels of Battlemaster to immerse themelves in the art.

BL: I feel Cavalier and Scout should have BM maneuvers in the same fashion.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Seriously, we've got 3 subclasses without superiority dice. Where does this sudden fear we're going to use superiority dice for every single subclass from now on?

There is none. Just pointing out that these particular subclasses aren't doing anything mechanically interesting or innovative, because they're just looting BM mechanics. They are using the BM hammer for these subclass nails, and it's not doing the subclasses they're modeling any favors.

So glad you know that the subclasses can't feel like a cavalier or scout without playing them at all, or trying out their features. I look at the pdf, and I see plenty of "charge into combat!" and skirmisher abilities.

But each one requires a resource allocation - a decision of "do I want to spend my dice on this or something else?" I shouldn't be making a tactical decision about charging or not, I should just be charging. Liberate these mechanics from SD (or change the way the SD are restored), and you might get something.

Without referencing the superiority dice at all, can you explain how the cavalier isn't goign to be charging into combat on a mount? Or the scout isn't using stealth and skirmishing? Because that's what they clearly look like they're doing to me.

Why should I avoid referencing SD? Using SD (in the same way as the BM does) is pretty much the core of my criticism. That's the mechanic they're using to do these things. If they don't use that mechanic, they can't do these things much better than any other character, and if the designers didn't use that mechanic, I wouldn't be grousing about them using that mechanic.

It sounds like your complaint is more "Gods sltarn it! I want another simple, mindless Fighter!" Because what you're actually saying doesn't seem to make sense - you're exaggerating things into strawmen and charactures.

Interesting how I'm accused of strawmen and caricatures in a post that claims I can't possibly know what I'm talking about, tries to argue about other things, and wants to put words in my mouth I've never said. It's not like BM manuevers are the only possible expression of a complex fighter in 5e. My opinion of the College of Swords is similar, though you don't seem to take exception there.

I'm really not too worried about providing my opinion on the subclasses presented for me to provide my opinion on, and my opinion is that these seem kind of phoned-in and samey because they take too much from the BM without giving us new things (the new SD mechanics aren't much different from new manuevers, narrowed). You're invited to disagree with me if you feel otherwise. I'm just some dork on a D&D message board, after all.

 

[Goemoe]

Why the hell is he scout a subclass of the fighter? It even gains a ranger feature. The scout has always been more of a ranger than most other specs. You can even play the ranger very well as a scout and always could. The fighter has never been build around skills, now he gains s.dice to 'imitate' skills. I hate that. Make the scout a subclass of the ranger as it is supposed to be! I don't care if it has been this way in 2e. This is 5e and we should have learned a thing or two during the years.

 

[phantomK9]

I'm thinking that a lot of the issues being discussed about the Battle Master and use of Maneuvers and Superiority Dice might have been completely cut off at the source if the Fighter was originally published as a class that made use of the Maneuvers and Superiority Dice in the base class mechanic, meaning that ALL Fighter sub-classes would have access at least to a limited number of Maneuvers. Then, rather than simple Ability Score Increase (or Feat if allowed) throughout class progression, the Fighter - no matter the sub-class - could choose say one or two maneuvers at those levels. Of course the Battle Master would then have to be the sub-class that really opens up giving even more maneuvers (and probably some other unique mechanic) to the Fighter.

I'm sure this would have been a bit daunting for new players as they would have to keep track of Fighting Styles, Maneuvers and Feats (if allowed) all in just the core class, before even adding on options from the sub-class, so maybe it is best it is done the way it is. *shrug* Anyway too late now without having to rewrite the class for your home game.

 

[phantomK9]

Why the hell is he scout a subclass of the fighter? It even gains a ranger feature. The scout has always been more of a ranger than most other specs. You can even play the ranger very well as a scout and always could. The fighter has never been build around skills, now he gains s.dice to 'imitate' skills. I hate that. Make the scout a subclass of the ranger as it is supposed to be! I don't care if it has been this way in 2e. This is 5e and we should have learned a thing or two during the years.

My biggest problem with the Scout is really the skills.
- A Fighter starts with 2 skills at character creation.
- A Ranger starts with 3 (or is it 4, don't have my books in front of me).

So the Fighter (Scout) would end up with more skills than the Ranger. That just seems wrong to me.
Clearly this needs to be limited to just one new skill from the list at 3rd level. (And of course proficiency in cartographers' tools.)