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

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

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like THAC0, save or die, and level drain. Guess that means 5e completely thumbed its nose at us old school players then, doesn't it?

If you really /do/ like the unequal advancement of THAC0, yeah, you're a bit out of luck. 5e substitutes Extra Attack for a roughly comparable increase in combat effectiveness for the classes that had better THAC0, though.

Of course not, but that's the logic you're using.

Nope. We're talking about sub-classes that open up new options, not basic mechanics that do the same things differently.

Attack Matrixes, THAC0, BAB, 1/2 level, Proficiency, they all let characters get better at attacking as they level.

they didn't put out 5e because 4e was so unjust it excluded playstyles. They put out 5e because people were leaving 4e in droves to play PF, and WotC realized that 4e's mechanics only appealed to a minority of they player base.

Re-hashing your edition war talking points won't make any of that true. If you think your h4ter credentials need polishing, rant on, but that's all you're accomplishing.

5e was conceived as an edition to unite the fan base, not pick one fraction of it and exclude the others.

D&D is a business, whether you care to admit it or not, and thus is driven by business factors.

WotC is a unit of a business, D&D is IP. In 2007, WotC promised Hasbro 50+ million a year in D&D revenue, by 2010 it had clearly failed. D&D hadn't been rejected by your imagined 'majoriy' of h4ters (indeed, WotCs own research for the playtest later revealed that the majority of D&D fans did not have a strong preference for a single edition), it just hadn't brought in more than double what the entire industry had in recent years. In fact, the industry had already headed into a downturn (the was the great freak'n recession, afterall). Now, years into a weak recovery, and several years into a remarkable resurgence in interest in boardgaming (which D&D tends to be sold right along side), RPGs are doing better. D&D still hasn't come anywhere near the 50-100 million revenue levels of a c2007 Hasbro 'core brand,' but it's no longer expected to ('core brand' may not even be a thing in that sense at Hasbro, anymore), and the investment in the line, and thus slow pace of publication, reflects those more realistic expectations.

The business reasons are real, but they have vanishingly little to do with the mechanical preferences or edition prejudices of the most ardent segments of the fanbase who obsess over such things.

Certainly, there's a difference in method (opt-in v opt-out), and in how frequently opt-in material is allowed.

However, the ultimate truth is that elves and hobb. . . er, halflings, are entirely optional material. I know, because I play the game without halflings and the game hasn't broken down. I likewise disallow long-range teleport magic, and the game hasn't broken down. Both are optional, despite being printed in the PHB.

Ultimately, yes. But there's still a psychological boost to having a preference or game element being in the opt-out or core category rather than the opt-in. It doesn't entirely explain the horror of new opt-in options in later supplements. (Power creep concerns are another matter, but, IMHO, less of an issue in 5e, which leaves tuning balance to the DM.)

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's why not all preferences were represented at launch. The game has been out for a while now. It's doing quite well (though the movie will probably suck), and it has a wealth of options for people with non-4e preferences. It's time now to actually live up to the claim of being for fans of all editions by adding some appeal for fans who were left out at launch. 4e should have offered a vancian option, and they probably should have done it in the PHB (though the PHB2 would not have been too far out of line). 5e should learn from the mistake of excluding a loyal part of the fanbase and offer real options for those whose preferences were ignored or given only lip-service at launch.

So I should expect options for level draining, save or die, and THAC0 to return?

That's the point I'm getting at. Just because you might not be getting the exact option you want, doesn't mean they are excluding the entire fanbase of that edition, or paying lip service to 4e fans. It just means that maybe your preferred mechanic is only shared by a smaller number, and thus really isn't worth the time to create options for it. Just like I shouldn't expect my options to be present at some point. and judging by 5e's success (one of the most popular editions ever), it doesn't seem that they are excluding a loyal customer base at all. They are a business, and business is doing extremely well compared to the previous edition. Ultimately that's the only thing that matters. You weren't given lip service ,and that's what I mean by trying to paint yourself as a victim. they did what they said they were going to do. 5e has pulled inspiration from every edition. Just like save or die, THAC0, and level draining, there will be some things from 4e that won't ever make it in. That in no way means they are paying 4e fans lip service. For some reason you (and a lot of other 4e fans I've seen) seem to act like you're the only ones who had their favorite edition stop, and demand more than fans of any other edition of what you want. The reality is that if your preferences are shared only by a minority, then you probably won't see them. Again, just like my preferences of level draining and save or die.

If they were going to pull everyone's favorite rules from 4e in, then it would have been 4.5e, and not 5e.

 

[MechaPilot]

5e was conceived as an edition to unite the fan base, not pick one fraction of it and exclude the others.

Insert 1980's slow clap here.

Ultimately, yes. But there's still a psychological boost to having a preference or game element being in the opt-out or core category rather than the opt-in. It doesn't entirely explain the horror of new opt-in options in later supplements. (Power creep concerns are another matter, but, IMHO, less of an issue in 5e, which leaves tuning balance to the DM.)

Yes. You are right that some people erroneously think that just because something is printed in the PHB/DMG/MM that it's gospel or otherwise non-optional. Those people are wrong. The very roots of D&D were about making the game your own. This continued and was called out in the editions as they came and went, and no item from the PHB.

Yeah, I don't get the horror of new options. As a player, you can simply not use them. As a DM, you can simply disallow them. The only touchy area is if you participate in the AL and your fun will be ruined by playing at the same table as one of these options; which not only strikes me as a personal issue for the hypothetical AL participant in question, but also an inherent danger in playing in a venue that amounts to WotC's marketing of their newest material.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you really /do/ like the unequal advancement of THAC0, yeah, you're a bit out of luck. 5e substitutes Extra Attack for a roughly comparable increase in combat effectiveness for the classes that had better THAC0, though.

Nope. We're talking about sub-classes that open up new options, not basic mechanics that do the same things differently.

We were talking about mechanics like marking, and how some people don't like that style

Re-hashing your edition war talking points won't make any of that true. If you think your h4ter credentials need polishing, rant on, but that's all you're accomplishing.

nice ad hominem, but sorry, those are facts backed up by sales numbers and player base. It has nothing to do with me being a h4ter (which I'm not; I'm completely ambivalent to it because I don't play it and it doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form). labeling anyone who disagrees with you as a "hater" might seem awfully convenient, but it doesn't change the facts. Neither does you ignoring them.

5e was conceived as an edition to unite the fan base, not pick one fraction of it and exclude the others.

And as I mentioned, it pulled inspiration from every edition. Acting like 4e fans were somehow disproportionately ignored or given lip service is also untrue, looking at actual facts.

 

[MechaPilot]

So I should expect options for level draining, save or die, and THAC0 to return?

Level draining and SoD should be presented as options for those who want them. If I had designed the medusa in the MM, I would have a sidebar that talks about an option for making the gaze SoD, and the XP and CR impacts thereof. Likewise with level drain on vampires.

As Tony has already pointed out, THAC0 differs from those options in a very fundamental way, by straight up replacing the calculation of successful attack rolls with a different paradigm, which would necessitate ripples though the armor table, the calculation of spell-attack bonuses, and the ACs of every creature already printed. By contrast, new subclasses and optional buffs to monster abilities are additive in nature. If you have a sidebar that talks about how to make the medusa's gaze SoD on a failure instead of on a failure by 5 or more, that affects the challenge and xp awards of the creature, but it doesn't ripple through the armor table and the ACs of every creature in the game.

Also, SoD does exist in the game. In my game, which I'm running in a few hours, the PCs are fighting a Solar. The Solar's bow (as worded in the MM) has an SoD effect against creatures it strikes who have 100 or less HPs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As Tony has already pointed out, THAC0 differs from those options in a very fundamental way, by straight up replacing the calculation of successful attack rolls with a different paradigm, which would necessitate ripples though the armor table, the calculation of spell-attack bonuses, and the ACs of every creature already printed.

More to the point, 5e Proficiency and Extra Attack accomplish the same things as 2e THAC0 - making characters better at fighting as they level, and certain classes better at fighting than others, especially at higher level. Your 2e fighter wielding a weapon in an anti-magic zone will do more damage than your 2e wizard doing the same, and that holds in 5e - not for exactly all the same reasons, but it'll still be a pretty dramatic difference between the two.

By contrast, new subclasses and optional buffs to monster abilities are additive in nature.

Insert 1980's slow clap here. (did I do that right)

 

[Tony Vargas]

We were talking about mechanics like marking, and how some people don't like that style

The Knight sub-class includes that mechanic, but you could already play a Knight without it - using existing sub-classes & backgrounds, no problem. People who don't like that 'style' shouldn't object to the added option, because there's no need for them to opt into it as a DM, nor avail themselves of it as a player, even if their DM does include the Knight as an option.

OTOH, people who have been missing that style now have a non-casting alternative to the Oath of the Crown Paladin.

They gain. You lose nothing. Why do you object?

And as I mentioned, it pulled inspiration from every edition. Acting like 4e fans were somehow disproportionately ignored or given lip service is also untrue, looking at actual facts.

Actual fact. Every class that appeared in the PH1 in any edition was in the 5e PH, /except/ the Warlord, which was the only such class introduced by 4e.

Now, I could give a litany of similar slights that'd dwarf the mostly-imagined grievances of edition-war h4ters, and I could hold that omission against 5e forever, because, short of a half-edition and PH re-print, it's un-fixable as stated, condemning anything as 'too little too late,' like the h4ters started doing in 2009.

But I'm not. I just want to see the best bits of 4e that 5e hasn't included a worthy take on, yet, added. Opt-in optional as it must be at this point. It'll be nice to have more interesting player options.

And, on topic, the Knight's a step in the right direction, better than I'd've thought could be done with just an Archetype. I hope it makes it into print in good shape at some point.

If not as much as I hope for a good Warlord...

 

[MechaPilot]

We were talking about mechanics like marking, and how some people don't like that style.

Has anyone ever disputed that some people don't like marking? Add it to the list of stuff where some people like it and some people don't, right along with Spell Slots, Spell Points (which I prefer), full overnight HP recovery, SoD, Tracking Ammunition, Level Drain, intrigue or other socially focused types of games, etc.

But, just because some people like a thing and some people don't doesn't mean we should never see the option. SoD and Level Drain options should have been built into sidebars in the MM (or in the DMG if they could find a way to consolidate and present it well in a single entry).

 

[Istbor]

You are objecting awfully hard to optional material. Wasn't 5e supposed to be the modular D&D game for fans of all editions of D&D? When did they change the sign from "welcome in D&D fans, 5e wants you" to "if you became a fan from 2007 - 2011 go screw yourself?"

I don't think that sign ever changed.

I never got the same level of disgust or insult others seem to have ore recall having during that time. I mean yeah... it was different. I kind of liked that difference after burning out from 3e stuff. Eventually, the longer combats got a bit tedious, but I still think it contributed some important mechanics and philosophy to D7D as a whole.

Plus... I REALLY liked the Barbarians and avengers. Some fond memories there.

 

[MechaPilot]

If you really /do/ like the unequal advancement of THAC0, yeah, you're a bit out of luck.

While you can't do THAC0 without a massive reworking, it is possible to just make some classes better or worse at fighting. You could very easily create three tiers of attack proficiency by giving some classes penalties to attack rolls. If we assume the fighter, paladin, etc would be the best, we could apply a -1 to attack rolls for the cleric (and others), and a -2 to attack rolls for the wizard (and others). With a little more work, you could create three separate weapon proficiency tables, similar to 3e's BAB.