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

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

 

[neogod22]

After looking over the 2 archer subclasses. I think Arcane Archer is a weak battlemaster. It needs a bigger pool of magic arrows. I wouldn't mind if it did less damage for more arrows, or forgo the extra damage all together and allow for the arcane shot to be used on every arrow.

Sharpshooter is actually pretty impressive if you think about it. It takes some of the best things from the sharpshooter and crossbow master feats and put them into a fighting style. The fact that Careful Aim gives all your attacks extra damage means that at higher levels, you will do some pretty impressive damage, especially if you action surge and stack the sharpshooter feat on it.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[neogod22]

That's weird, I only sent this once, why did it automatically make copies?

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

Has anyone ever disputed that some people don't like marking?

I'm sure that somewhere on the blasted battlefields of the edition war, there's a post to that effect.

And, short of that, I must have questioned the relevance or plausibility of the /reasons/ given for disliking it on occasion, I'm sure.

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.

Psoinics, encumbrance, speed factor, weapon v armor type, threatening reach...

But, just because some people like a thing and some people don't doesn't mean we should never see the option.

I think part of it is psychological and part of it is practical. It just feels good to see the things you want being placed as high as possible in that hierarchy of officialdom (ie PH standard > AL-official > PH opt-in > DMG opt-in > later supplement opt-in > UA > DMsG > 3pp > EN5ider > house rules - I'm guessing, I'd put print 3pp above DMsG, but I doubt most would agree, for instance).
In the practical sense, the more-official/less-optional DMs perceive something you'd like to play, the easier it'll be to find a game where it's available.
The more confident you are that the thing in question is worthy, the more likely you'll be perfectly happy with it not being opt-in: not in the standard game 'only' an option in the PH (like Multi-Classing, for instance), or even only in a later supplement or UA.
Conversely, if you want to deprive others of the chance to play something even when you're not DMing (or even playing at their table to make a case against it in person), you want to hold the line on it as far down the hierarchy as possible. The more you believe the idea is genuinely bad rather than just a matter of personal distaste, the higher up the chain you'll be able to tolerate it crawling.

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).

Level Drain was truly horrible, IMHO, but it's not complicated to implement. A discussion on alternate ways to deal with it might have been nice, though. I could imagine it discussing various ways of re-gaining drained levels, for instance, from long rest/level to re-earning a reduced amount of exp to completely out of luck.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Expertise is already something of that nature. Everyone gets better at skills equally, except the Bard & Rogue. So you could preserve the consistency of Proficiency as a mechanic & a number, but give some classes features that add to it proportionately. Too much (like Expertise) and it'd break Bounded Accuracy, of course. Extra Attack really goes a long way, though. It respects BA, even while breaking DPR wide open.

 

[maceochaid]

With regards to the Knight, I agree that the concept is better served by the background. I like Background and Archetype to do 1 thing, so that their combinations give characters more range. This knight archetype seems to be a combination of three things, a mounted warrior, a marker, and a nobleman. The only "noble" part of the Knight is the late proficiency gain, which is pretty much what the background gives and at the beginning of a hero's career which makes more sense to me. Then there is the mounted warrior. I prefer this being it's own archetype, the Cavalier in a previous Unearthed Arcana had it's faults but I think would be better implementation. I recommend that it come with a warning to DM and Player explaining the potential problem of dungeons that don't accommodate horses, and recommending the Mounted Combat feat as an alternative. The Cavalier takes on different dimensions with the Outlander, Folk Hero, Entertainer, or Noble (Knight) background. Finally the marking mechanic could fit a variety of heroes. A "Juggernaut," "Warden," or "Defender" could have the marking mechanic and focus on sheet immovability, heavy armor, and short range control. This Juggernaut+Knight background and mounted combat feat accomplishes a similar feel for the character. However Juggernaut+Folk Hero=Little John type, Juggernaut+Entertainer=Maximus/Spartacus, Juggernaut+Criminal=Bruiser Thug you don't want to meet in a dark alley.

 

[pemerton]

The entire GNS "theory" is largely hogwash.

When posters on this board call mechanics like marking "gamist", they are not using that word in anything like the sense that Ron Edwards et al use it. So whether or not you agree with their usage, or find it helpful, it has nothing to do with GNS/Forge analysis of RPG design and play.

 

[RotGrub]

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.

IMO, that's complete BS. I don't buy it at all. There is no rational in-game explanation. Consider how marking ignores language barriers, sound limitations, and the targets psychology. And if the method of causing the penalty to hit is physical, it's even more ridiculous when range factors and physical obstructions are considered.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Since it seems we are going to keep discussing the Knight Marking quite a bit, I'm curious, does any one have a readily available list of monsters immune to fear?

The Mark is a fear effect, meaning that enemies immune to fear are unaffected, off the top of my head I don't know how many monsters that is. I have a feeling it is quite a few, but I don't feel like combing thru the MM to count them all, especially if someone made a spreadsheet a while back which lists all the condition immunities.


Also, let's say we scrap the 15th level Rapid strike for those 3 classes, what kind of things should we put in their places? I honestly can't think of anything that is super flavorful with the design intent and not ridiculously overpowered.

Could also be a lack of coffee

 

[RotGrub]

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

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

Notice here that the Grinch isn't just taking the presents away from the little girl, he's replacing them with s**t that will make her cry on Christmas day.
Sadly, there is no path to redemption in this story. The green monster is content to tell the teary eyed little girl that Christmas is "optional"

 

[phantomK9]

Rapid Strike additional thoughts....

Considering that Rapid Strike is something they gave to nearly all of the archetypes, I'm wondering if it isn't something that should be available to more than just those archetypes. Making it into a Fighting Style, or part of one seems like it could be interesting. Or even turn it into a Feat so that anyone has access to it.

Of course it also seems like a descent maneuver, but then that would mean only the Battle Master could use it. This then leads to my belief that all Fighters should have maneuvers and Superiority Dice, but that is probably a discussion for a different day....