Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Fighter: Samurai, Sharpshooter, Arcane Archer & Knight

I'm getting, like, unhealthy amounts of mad, clicking on that broken link.

 

[cbwjm]

If it's fine to be a thief without taking the thief class then I think it is fine with be a knight without taking the knight class. Don't get too hung up on the names for subclasses.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[Colder]

... It's not quite the same thing. You can be a criminal without being either a thief or an assassin. Also, taking the "criminal" background does not give you the thieving skills or assassin skills (death attack, etc.) of actually taking the Rogue archtypes in question. Whereas there already exists a perfectly good knight and samurai in the PH, notwithstanding that it isn't CALLED that. It's like the situation with ninjas: you could play a ninja by playing a Way of Shadow Monk (the PH actually suggests this) or a Rogue Assassin, or multiclassing. No need for a specifically-named "Ninja" archtype.

By the same token, you could build a perfectly fine thief or assassin without using a single level of Rogue as well, as cbwjm was saying. Hunters without using Ranger, too.

You can be any background without actually using that background, too. You're not an urchin, you're a tour guide. You're not a pirate, you're a heel wrestler. You're not a criminal, you're a detective. Etc.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If it's fine to be a thief without taking the thief class then I think it is fine with be a knight without taking the knight class. Don't get too hung up on the names for subclasses.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

Yeah, one of my imports from 1e is my halfling f/t that in 5e is just a fighter with criminal background, and is still played pretty much the same---a thief

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yeah, one of my imports from 1e is my halfling f/t that in 5e is just a fighter with criminal background, and is still played pretty much the same---a thief

Yep, backgrounds are "multiclassing lite". Other than a couple ribbons, the Knight subclass works great as a bodyguard type character. Good subclass addition IMO.

As usual, whining about gamist marking mechanics ignores the fact that the mechanic exists to simulate narratives. You know, how in stories the big bad guy shows down with the tough fighter guy rather than run over and squash the mage? The entire GNS "theory" is largely hogwash.

 

[Azzy]

For some people it makes no sense. It caters to a style of play that isn't shared by everyone.

Then don't use those subclasses. Problem solved.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

For some people it makes no sense. It caters to a style of play that isn't shared by everyone.

Look, there are people that believe the earth is flat. Others think magnets make no sense. But marking makes complete sense from an in-game simulation and narrative perspective if you arent going in with raging 4E hatred blinders on.

 

[MechaPilot]

The bulk of 5e caters to those with non-4e preferences. It should not be controversial for them to finally introduce more elements that people with 4e preferences will enjoy. None of the material is required-use in nature. Even if the material actually makes it into a printed book, it still won't be mandatory use in nature (though some of it may be allowed in the AL).

During the playtest 5e was billed as being the modular system with options for most styles of play. People shouldn't be insulted, outraged, or irate by that coming to fruition (though it certainly is surprising, as I had basically given up on WotC living up to any of the options hype of the playtest era). No matter where it comes from, if you have a problem with an option, don't use it. No matter where it comes from, if you're a DM who has a problem with an option, don't allow its use. If you're participating in the AL and you have a problem with an option that is allowed for the AL, then you need to recognize that the AL is not intended to appeal solely to your preferences, and that it's as much a marketing tool for WotC's D&D products as it is a forum for people to play.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm getting rather annoyed with how JC has been sneaking in all the vilified 4e rules lately. Did that marking really need to return? WTF!

Yes. Yes, it did, and there's a lot more that needs to, as well (obviously, including a Warlord class), if 5e is to live up to it's goal of inclusiveness towards fans of all past editions, rather than wallowing in self-congratulatory intolerance as the h4ter edition.

For some people it makes no sense. It caters to a style of play that isn't shared by everyone.

Yes, like Vancian casting, 6-8 encounter days, band-aid clerics and beatstick fighters, the mark mechanic works well for certain styles and clashes with others - that's the /point/, those styles it works for are a step closer to being enabled in 5e.

There certainly are styles of play shared by people.

But not "shared by everyone."

Which is why we should see far more optional rules than what we currently have.

Every rule out after the PH (and some in it) is an optional rule the DM must opt into if a player is to use it at his table. Even if the recent UAs make it to print in an official supplement, they'll still be optional.

With that said, I think it's very easy for designers to identify gamey dissonant mechanics and make them optional.

There's no need to label a mechanic with meaningless edition-war pejoratives to make it optional. It's all optional. Make the game your own. Don't try to make everyone else conform to your own game.

But some are a lot more popular than others,

And people always seem to think that their preferences are the popular ones. They are often wrong. And, popularity is fickle. Defend the rights of the minority, because you never know when you might end up part of one.

and/or are core parts of what makes D&D D&D. Not all preferences are equal.

They are, if the game is to be inclusive. If it were not for the desire to treat all preferences equally, there'd've been no need for 5e in this form, nor even for Essentials.

Knight and Samurai should be backgrounds. By making it a subclass, does that mean no knight or samurai can get Champion abilities? Or Battle Master Abilities? Or cast spells without multiclassing?

Two thoughts:

1) In 5e, there's often more than one way to get to a concept, depending on the options in play. Noble is a background even in the pdf, you could tweak it to make a Samurai background pretty easily. Feats & MCing also let you pull in bits from other classes, so if you wanted a 'Samurai' with some CS dice or spells, you could take the Samurai archetype and pull in spells via MCing or CS dice via a feat, or you could use a Background to evoke the Samurai social position, and play a Battlemaster or EK.

2) The silo'ing of fighter sub-class abilities rather than building up of options may be frustrating, but if you followed Essentials, which Mike Mearls also helmed, it's not surprising. The fighter sub-classes in that line each gained very different and innately incompatible abilities from the preceding AEDU fighters, eliminating virtually all synergy between the two.

None of the abilities in the UA couldn't have been just additional Battle Master manuevers. Would have made the Arcane Archer way better. That said, it would have been cool to get a variant Eldritch Knight that had some archery abilities....

Nod. (2), above. Mike has a solid record of limiting customizeability and power creep when introducing new choices for non-casters.

The sniper is interesting because it is a way for a fighter to get a Feat without needing to use the Feat OPTIONAL rules. Interesting idea, this was maybe not executed well but fundamentally a good design.

Nod. (1), above. It's one of the things 5e got 'right,' IMHO. It presents the DM with a lot of options, but if the DM doesn't allow feats or MCing, the player can still get to certain concepts that might've been optimally done that way, via backgrounds and sub-classes.

The developers have lost their minds again. Reminds me of the 4e essentials junk that everyone hated.

Not everyone hated Essentials, and those of us who did often hated them for diametrically opposed reasons.

I could be wrong, but isn't this just the 4e Slayer and Knight reincarnated?

The Knight Fighter archetype is certainly strongly reminiscent of the Essentials Knight(Fighter). The Champion was already strongly evocative of the Slayer.

 

[MechaPilot]

There certainly are styles of play shared by people.

Which is why we should see far more optional rules than what we currently have.

With that said, I think it's very easy for designers to identify gamey dissonant mechanics and make them optional.

Virtually everything is optional, no matter where it's printed.

Elves? Optional.
Battlemaster subclass? Optional.
Teleport spells? Optional.
etc. . . .

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'll admit, I wouldn't have a problem if we decided to go for more generic names for the classes, but I don't think it is terribly necessary either.

I'm actually really turning on to creating a Half-Orc Samurai Soldier. No real association with Far Eastern Noble Warriors, but some of their philosophies can still make sense in a "Way of the Sword" disciplined Warrior.