D&D 5E The Warrior (or how to balance martial's and casters)


log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
shield should stay as base feature.
IMHO, shield should be tied to light armor not medium, or have light, medium and heavy shields for +1,+2 and +3 bonus.

shield is more for fighting styles.

2handed,
ranged,
dual wield
sword and board.
I can put it back - clerics have it after all. Just an FYI, this class doesn't have fighting styles. It has Martial Traditions instead. As I mentioned, the Iron Defense tradition was going to have shield proficiency (along with heavy armor proficiency). Do you still think I should keep shields in the base class?
 

dave2008

Legend
The problems you’ll run into are kind of big. The three main ones are: 1) Some fighter players want their fighters to be everyman characters; 2) Some fighter players want their fighters to be supernatural demigods, and; 3) wish.

No matter what you do someone from 1 and/or 2 will be upset unless you build in a way to choose on a player by player basis, or even a round to round basis, being able to switch from 1 to 2.
Option 1 is what the "Fighter" class is for. The "Warrior" is not a replacement for the fighter, it is in addition too. If people don't want a martial with this type of flexibility - don't use it.

Option 2 is covered by this class.

So I don't really see those as problems at all.
Then there’s wish. No matter how wild and demigod you go with fighters, there’s no getting around the reality warping effects that sorta make sense for wizards that simply don’t for fighters.
Sure, but I am not going to worry about 1 spell. That hardly invalidates this approach IMO. If that is really a concern, make wish a 10th level spell that you can only get via an epic boon (which it probably should be).

So I guess see your 3 problems as fairly minor to non-existent.
 

Horwath

Legend
I can put it back - clerics have it after all. Just an FYI, this class doesn't have fighting styles. It has Martial Traditions instead. As I mentioned, the Iron Defense tradition was going to have shield proficiency (along with heavy armor proficiency). Do you still think I should keep shields in the base class?
yes, I view shields as weapon set(s).

also, maybe consider that instead of 9 levels, you tone it down to 5. every 4 levels new power level. at levels 1,5,9,13,17.

Might have room to go back to d10 HDs.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Not every character will want to use a shield (although it's probably a good idea for the Warrior). So having it be an option is just fine. I think d8 is fine for a Hit Die; Clerics seem to do ok, and people play Monks, so I assume they're fine with it.

I wouldn't worry about Wish either; you're never going to be able to compete with the ever expanding spell list of a caster. Even Tome of Battle didn't try to make the Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade equal to the Cleric/Druid/Wizard- it just brought them to a level where you could at least compare them to one another.

The spell list is really the biggest reason why the Wizard and his peers are such a pain; you're not going to be able to match things like Simulacrum, Gate, True Polymorph, or Wish, and you shouldn't try- those are already game elements that are problematic. Just being able to perform mighty feats ascribed to legendary heroes is good enough in my book.
 




James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
No no, the musket. It's a rather blatant series of assumptions based around, among other things, the Gunner Feat in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.
 

Horwath

Legend
No no, the musket. It's a rather blatant series of assumptions based around, among other things, the Gunner Feat in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.
kensai with musket might be good. add Sharpshooter for good measure.

"how do you make martial artists useful in battle?"
Give them firearms and distance them 100 or so feet from melee.
 

Remove ads

Top