• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

No Hope for Scout and Monster Hunter Fighter and artificer wizard

Mouseferatu

Villager
With apologies to those who liked the fighter scout, I'm good with this.

I didn't care for any of the "we use superiority dice and are basically a more focused/more limited battlemaster" subclasses. I'd prefer the either avoid superiority dice completely when building new subclasses, or at lease use them in entirely different ways.
 

Unwise

Villager
[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION], why though? Isn't there an elegance to reusing the same basic rules and just changing as little as possible to get the desired effect? The spell-casting section of most caster classes is almost identical, it would seem confusing and inefficient to rewrite it per class. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just curious. It may of course just be personal preference. I found the Scout's combat orientated uses of superiority to be the blandest options imaginable, but then again if you are only getting a couple I guess that makes sense.

For me the scout was pretty much what I wanted in a Ranger. Basically a fighter who gave up some flexibility and little bit of combat power in order to have good outdoor skills. My only real problem with it was that it gave up too little combat power for the extra skills etc. Limiting people's options is not really a balancing feature if the person only had access to a small subset of of those features to start with e.g. BM maneuver.

The Rogue Scout works well for the hidden elven sniper style ranger, but is not to my taste for the bountyhunter, highwayman, Aragorn or military forward scout style guys.
 

Kobold Avenger

Explorer
I didn't care for any of the "we use superiority dice and are basically a more focused/more limited battlemaster" subclasses. I'd prefer the either avoid superiority dice completely when building new subclasses, or at lease use them in entirely different ways.
They backed themselves into a corner when they made Superiority Dice to be the sole special thing about the Battlemaster. All fighters should have got Superiority Dice, and then they bothered making the Battlemaster the master of using Superority Dice.
 
S

Sunseeker

Guest
[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION], why though? Isn't there an elegance to reusing the same basic rules and just changing as little as possible to get the desired effect?
No, not really.

D&D has always been pretty clear that while you can build a light-fighter, scouting and scouting themes have almost always been the domain of the Ranger or the Rogue.

A Bounty Hunter doesn't need a class. It can be literally any sort of class, even Wizards can be Bounty Hunters, that's sort of why it was such a wide-spread profession because it was so "every-man". A Highwayman is probably better built as a Rogue/Fighter MC, and if you're about to say "Well I don't use the MC rules!" well then sorry bud, there's gonna be some concepts you miss out on, and D&D need not create a stock class to cover every MC concept under the sun. Aragorn has ALWAYS been a Ranger, you may not like that but he is literally the basis for the class, and a Forward Scout is probably better off built closer to a sniper anyway.

The fact of the matter is, concepts like the Scout were pretty heavily covered by the rules to begin with, you could build a very solid one with just the base PHB classes. We don't need a new class for only minor feature adjustments.
 

Azzy

Explorer
[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION], why though? Isn't there an elegance to reusing the same basic rules and just changing as little as possible to get the desired effect?
The thing, though, is that if you're going to have another subclass that uses Superiority Dice, it needs to have enough unique Maneuvers to make it feel distinct from the Battle Master.
 

Mouseferatu

Villager
[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION], why though? Isn't there an elegance to reusing the same basic rules and just changing as little as possible to get the desired effect?
That assumes that they got the desired effect.

As [MENTION=6563]Azzy[/MENTION] said, the classes that did this didn't feel distinct. Nor did their powers feel interesting or sufficient enough. (All IMO, obviously.) They didn't feel like their own thing; they felt like a poorer, more limited battlemaster.

If a class can be designed around superiority dice that actually feels and plays like it's a totally different thing than the battlemaster, and feels sufficiently like it accomplishes whatever its concept is supposed to accomplish, and feels interesting in its own right, sure, I'm fine with that. But I've yet to see it, or even a hint of it, being done successfully.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
How much does official matter?
For the purposes of having a discussion on an official message board, please assume the answer is "everything", since otherwise there's no real point in discussing, if we can just agree to write our own personal fixes.
 

Warmaster Horus

Registered User
I'm a fan of keeping subclasses from spiraling out of control. I want some wiggle room in them to fit MY vision of a character and not have to squeeze that vision into a narrow subclass.

Anyway, you can build an excellent scouting fighter using the existing subclasses, feats and MCing. How do I know? I've done it.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
They backed themselves into a corner when they made Superiority Dice to be the sole special thing about the Battlemaster. All fighters should have got Superiority Dice, and then they bothered making the Battlemaster the master of using Superority Dice.
In contrast, I think they backed themselves into a corner when they created one subclass with all the maneuvers, and worse, one where every maneuver has the same cost.

Had they included a "specialized Battlemaster" with a much more focused set of maneuvers, or at least one with "tiered" maneuvers (where low-level characters can only select from a limited set, and others become available only at high levels) there would still be design space for more subclasses associated with superiority dice.

As it is, superiority dice is essentially dead as a mechanism valuable in creating new subclasses.

The Battlemaster could theoretically be errataed to have restrictions that are meant nerf flexibility (but not necessarily power).

However, it seems clear no such redesign errata is forthcoming, so all you could hope for is a new set of superiority dice subclasses, say a trio, where each one steals one third of the Battlemaster's schtick and adds a little something unique to it.

Then you're faced with the choice: do you go for the generic Battlemaster, or the new trio of subclasses?
 
They backed themselves into a corner when they made Superiority Dice to be the sole special thing about the Battlemaster. All fighters should have got Superiority Dice, and then they bothered making the Battlemaster the master of using Superority Dice.
That would have made it impossible to have the Champion as a class for the hypothetical player who only wants to roll dice without having to think.
 

cbwjm

I can add a custom title.
I still think that classes that have a narrower focus using superiority dice is a good idea, I actually quite like the examples they created in past UA articles. Having things to spend the dice on outside of combat was a great idea.
 
That would have made it impossible to have the Champion as a class for the hypothetical player who only wants to roll dice without having to think.
I'm agnostic on the dice, but they could have made it so that the champion's player rolls the dice once after each long/short rest and gets it out of the way, maybe with something like setting the critical hit range or a bonus to second wind.
 
S

Sunseeker

Guest
I'm a fan of keeping subclasses from spiraling out of control. I want some wiggle room in them to fit MY vision of a character and not have to squeeze that vision into a narrow subclass.

Anyway, you can build an excellent scouting fighter using the existing subclasses, feats and MCing. How do I know? I've done it.
This. And as a followup, one of the problems when you start making niche subclasses is that you start promoting the idea that you can't be one of those things if you're not also a class, especially when they're very generic names. Like, imagine if instead of Fighter, we called it "Soldier". It begs the question of "can you be a soldier without being a Solider class?" Or if we called the Paladin a Knight. What happens to everyone who wants to be a knight but doesn't play to play a Knight class?

Titles and professions as class names, when the class represents a very specific idea of that role, can end up being limiting, rather than empowering.
 

Olive

Villager
For the purposes of having a discussion on an official message board, please assume the answer is "everything", since otherwise there's no real point in discussing, if we can just agree to write our own personal fixes.
It's not an official message board!

I guess my point is that the rules exist and are out there. If you're happy with them, then it's great and you can continue. If it's not then I guess it could be disappointing. Otherwise if you're not playing AP then I don't see how it matters.
 

Advertisement

Top