Level Up (A5E) Thoughts on A5E classes from your table(s)?

[thuter]

Is a "Duel" a specific event specified somewhere?

I do not have access to the GPG other than what is published on the A5E.tools website. But if it is specified anywhere, the GPG issue that published the maneuvers would be my guess.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Don't get me wrong, I really like the CM system. It's just a problem of rewarding Fighters for sticking to a very narrow action pool, instead of rewarding them for embracing their enormous versatility. This leads to Fighters very rarely picking niche options for their specialization/combat maneuvers/fighting style because their selections are very limited, instead they will pick and boost the stuff that is useful most of the time, or just the strongest in general. They get access to any and all CM's in the game, can use all weapons to great effect, etc. So why make them select numerical bonuses for a very specific subset of them?

i think perhaps letting fighters change their specialized maneuvers on a long (or maybe even short, at least at higher levels) rest could help with this.

Now, all this would require a complete Fighter rework so it is probably out of the picture, but a man can dream

you know...i'm not sure it would. changes definitely, but a complete rework might not be necessary.

Thank you. GPG is where I originally quoted from.

Is a "Duel" a specific event specified somewhere?

dueling is a specific subsystem introduced in GPG #23, yes.

 

[thuter]

you know...i'm not sure it would. changes definitely, but a complete rework might not be necessary.

Not for some of my ideas, but if you want to have Fighting Styles improve with level and be focused towards working together with a tradition, you would need to rewrite the selection of maneuvers for Fighters, rework Maneuver Specialization, as well as change many levels of class features to detail the exact benefits you gain at certain levels for each style. These benefits would come with extra power, so other class features would have to be removed or toned down. The knacks and skill features can stay, the rest has to be revised probably...

I might even draft a variant version of the Fighter once I am done with my thesis

 

[evildmguy]

you would need to rewrite the selection of maneuvers for Fighters, rework Maneuver Specialization, as well as change many levels of class features to detail the exact benefits you gain at certain levels for each style.

As you said, stunned is one of the top conditions to inflict on an enemy, other than

Dead, Unconscious, Dominated and Paralyzed

Anything that pulls away from there has to be seen as somewhat equal value.

Maybe they could lean into the broken condition for gear and allow a sword and board fighter to avoid melee weapon damage with their reaction in exchange for a broken shield. Maybe it only saves them from half damage when broken and is destroyed after doing that. Then CMs could improve this where they can defend against certain magic types. They not only hide behind a steel shield as well as a tower shield but take half damage from Dexterity save spells. If that cost exertion per use, it's not Evasion for the fighter without effort.

Single weapon fighting could give AC benefits. It's my opinion that later monsters have enough bonus to hit that they won't pick this later but it could be good at early levels.

Maybe their need to be more weapon specialties. Having said that, I think some need to consider the game instead of history. While it is accurate to say that people fought with pike and shield, they did it as a wall together with others. After having a player use this "exploit" for a campaign, I would see that removed. They got all the benefits of a two handed pole arm and a shield.

It is also about the DM talking to their players. I didn't know until we were several sessions into it that pike and shield were valid. At that point, he had done enough around it that to remove that would change his character, so I didn't. If the DM knows things like this, obviously state it up front. I might have been able to argue that the pike/shield didn't fit the character's concept but it could then be argued that given what was thrown at them, this was their adaptation to their adventuring career.

Aside: My group that played LU has two players that love 5E and one that didn't like PF1. We recently switched to try PF2 and get into it, especially with new Player Core, and the one who hated PF1 LOVES PF2. I think it's the three action economy, that is easier than the actions of 5E/LU, and the tactical choices that matter that he likes.

 

[Chaltab]

what about this change to Stunning Assault?

Until the start of your next turn, the first creature you hit with a melee weapon attack gains the Rattled condition and makes a Constitution saving throw. On a failure, the target gains the Stunned condition until the end of your next turn. A creature that already has the Rattled condition automatically fails the saving throw.

 

[Distracted DM]

what about this change to Stunning Assault?

So, just my experience from play, but changing Stunning Assault to failed Save -> rattled -> failed save -> stunned still makes it, at least from my players' perspective, worth using as often as possible.

I think you either need to go the full change, or make it only affect the attacks you make with the action.
I believe your proposed change would mean that hitting a creature twice would result in an auto-stun, regardless of save... That's, in a way, a buff to an already must-take maneuver.

 

[lichmaster]

i think perhaps letting fighters change their specialized maneuvers on a long (or maybe even short, at least at higher levels) rest could help with this.

This. A lot of features that in o5E are a one and done choice, in LU can be "refocused" with a long rest.
I'm not yet sure about maneuver specialization, but I'd 100% allow it with the fighting style.

If we're talking about (partial) re-design, I think that switching styles mid combat would be an interesting and IMO very thematic feature for a fighter. Also, having them either "add" compatible weapon properties to a given weapon that doesn't naturally have them (eg sticking "reach" to a longsword), or improve somehow the properties a weapon has is also a good direction.
For example, Versatile could bump the dice by 1 category, removing the heavy property on some weapons (allowing small size fighters to use the weapon without issues, or even permitting dual-wielding), parrying could give a larger expertise dice or even work with ranged weapon attacks, defensive may allow 2 attacks with a bonus action or bumping AC by 2, etc.

If you put the two things together, you could have a very tactical gameplay where on a round to round basis you switch gear and fighting style

 

[Chaltab]

So, just my experience from play, but changing Stunning Assault to failed Save -> rattled -> failed save -> stunned still makes it, at least from my players' perspective, worth using as often as possible.

I think you either need to go the full change, or make it only affect the attacks you make with the action.
I believe your proposed change would mean that hitting a creature twice would result in an auto-stun, regardless of save... That's, in a way, a buff to an already must-take maneuver.

The point of adding "the first creature" is that you can't stun a creature more than once par turn, nor rattle more than one creature in a round. it works on only the first creature you target and if they save you don't get another shot at it until the following turn.

I feel that's way more appropriate for a 2nd degree maneuver, though I misremembered the stamina cost as 2. at 3 my change is prolly too big a nerf.

 

[Distracted DM]

The point of adding "the first creature" is that you can't stun a creature more than once par turn, nor rattle more than one creature in a round. it works on only the first creature you target and if they save you don't get another shot at it until the following turn.

I feel that's way more appropriate for a 2nd degree maneuver, though I misremembered the stamina cost as 2. at 3 my change is prolly too big a nerf.

My bad, didn't process that important part! But yeah, it's 3 points

 

[Distracted DM]

This. A lot of features that in o5E are a one and done choice, in LU can be "refocused" with a long rest.
I'm not yet sure about maneuver specialization, but I'd 100% allow it with the fighting style.

If we're talking about (partial) re-design, I think that switching styles mid combat would be an interesting and IMO very thematic feature for a fighter. Also, having them either "add" compatible weapon properties to a given weapon that doesn't naturally have them (eg sticking "reach" to a longsword), or improve somehow the properties a weapon has is also a good direction.


If you put the two things together, you could have a very tactical gameplay where on a round to round basis you switch gear and fighting style

Are we talking about making it so that they can only use maneuvers from one tradition at a time? So they'd have to switch traditions in the middle of a fight? Obviously this would be (like you said) a redesign of how maneuvers etc. work.

But just as a note, characters can swap out maneuvers like sorcerer etc. spells, when they gain new ones on level-ups. They can also potentially swap them out from the Training downtime activity.

I do see the appeal of letting the more niche maneuvers get some love- my instinct is to nerf/buff maneuvers so they all seem like viable choices, but general-use stuff like Stunning Assault does make it difficult... but I guess that's also the point of knowing a bunch of maneuvers, which the fighter does better than any of the other classes. Ofc that means that the other classes will probably just stick with whatever the best general-use maneuvers from their available traditions are... hm. Tough call.