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

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

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Quite frankly I have to speak up, I love 5e but 4e was the edition I started with (well short of a stint with like Neverwinter Nights 2), ironically, from the perspective of most of you when I see 4e mechanics pop up in 5e it starts to feel more like it's actually an inclusive edition of DND. Not just a reactionary cash grab to pathfinder luring away some of the market of previous players. In short, it starts to feel a little more like home- it has a weird effect, in that a lot of things i would have winced at near the end of 4e's life (Vancian casting, asymmetrical progression, 3.5 multiclassing, feat deficit, lack of choice on level up, no warlord, DM centric magic items) are more palatable to me than they once were.

Now, there are a bunch of things i like about 5e- it's simpler, and there are fewer trap options (which is the only thing I really dislike about Splat, otherwise, i love having pretty much everything represented mechanically somewhere in the edition.) It uses basic essentials design to bridge some of the gap between 4e and prior editions, leaving us with options that feel like prior edition counterparts, but with that signature mechanical flair of "everyone is useful" that distinguishes 4e. Believe me I know, i'm reasonably active over at the /r/unearthedarcana sub-reddit, something that couldn't have been if the mechanics in 5e were as complex as 4e made them.

All of that being said, reading these comments makes me sad- I love the knight's mark, and feel happy they're using the 4e design elements that my players and I love. It seems kind of aggressive to demand that it can't be a part of some splat sub-class that isn't even a part of the core PHB. I jumped on board with 5e because of the inclusive promise that it would represent a common foundation for all kinds of styles of play, so I'd be deeply disappointment if this didn't happen at some point. Even if it was Gamist, which i don't necessarily agree with, there are plenty of people whom do play DND for gamist reasons, and considering DND compares badly for narrativist design but tries it anyway, and compares badly to some things for simulationist design, but tries it anyway, I don't see why we can't take that fact and embrace it as being THE strength of DND as a tabletop game, that it compromises to get a wide range of players with different goals and sensibilities all at the same table having fun. It's probably one of the reasons for DND's popularity, White Wolf only really draws on the narrativist folks, Warhammer draws mainly on the gamist folks, and Pathfinder atm, probably gets the Simulationist players- as a continuation of the most simulationist edition of DND. Since 5e released, I think it's critical acclaim and popularity stem from the fact that it's accessible for all of these players- there are narrative elements, game elements, and simulation elements to get excited about, which in turn makes it easier to get more people to the table.

It honestly does make me feel kinda like the point isn't a good faith disagreement with the mechanic as it's implemented in 5e, but as part of a crusade against 4e- like any traces of that oft-hated edition I love need to be dealt with on the basis of existing under the DND brand, even if they're easily avoidable elements, like a sub class released multiple years after the edition core book in an internet article that *maybe* gets published in an expansion of the game. Like if we were discussing this in a vacuum, I could imagine denying the idea as being something the designers clearly aren't interested in doing or isn't popular enough, but since we're talking about it after the designers (whom do quite a bit of market research with this edition) made it, that seems sort of disingenuous.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Except there is. The guy who can mark is better at taking advantage of openings and causing distractions. The in game reason is because the fighter has put the enemy on edge from his attack. Note it doesnt work against things immune to fear?

You sim-guys with your fragile v-tudes. Man, I almost feel bad for people with such limited and concrete imaginations.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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"

Actually its more like a Christmas dinner, and someone wants to bring a dish you dont like. You don't have to eat it, but you're going to pitch a fit anyways until you get your way, because its all about you, and screw everyone with different tastes.

 

[Istbor]

While I doubt I will ever play another 4e game in my life. I didn't hate it. I certainly don't want people who like some aspects of it to feel left out in this edition. I mean, its marking ladies and gents. We aren't talking Warlords or DoaM from melee attacks. Just let some people have their mechanic while you enjoy yours. It is so so so easy to play in a game devoid of things you dislike.

On another note... While I wish they would be more imaginative with some of these sub-class names, I won't get ruffled feathers over it. In my games, there is no 'class name'. Declaring yourself a fighter does not mean a set of mechanics and abilities. It would only mean you fight. The same with Knight (not likely samurai since, these games are rarely set in a world where they would exist) or Assassin. You are instead declaring a title or an occupation.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

Agreed. And I'm about tired with this oft-repeated implication of "If you don't like my preference, then something is wrong with you." It comes up way too often, and tells me that rather than rely on a strong argument, the person saying it has to resort to personal insults. Just because some people don't like being able to grapple an ooze doesn't mean they have no imagination, are wearing raging hatred blinders, or just can't get it. ehren37, you should probably check yourself, because just in the past couple of posts in this thread, you've made these types of insults.

 

[RotGrub]

Actually its more like a Christmas dinner, and someone wants to bring a dish you dont like. You don't have to eat it, but you're going to pitch a fit anyways until you get your way, because its all about you, and screw everyone with different tastes.

Christmas dinner at your house is optional, especially when the turkey has been replaced with a giant frog. When that happens, it's time to return to tradition. At my place, Turkey and OSR are tradition. I swear that odd dish of 5e last year was just a foray into madness.

 

[Colder]

Christmas dinner at your house is optional, especially when the turkey has been replaced with a giant frog.

What's marking replacing in this metaphor?

 

[RotGrub]

What's marking replacing in this metaphor?

Marking is replacing some other power the Knight should have received.

I still can't figure out what Marking has to do with the concept of the Knight, but that's another issue.

 

[flametitan]

I don't see a problem with marking. It's hardly the worst mechanic out there. My main problem is that in an effort to "justify" it, they might've shot themselves in the foot with the limitation that frightened immunity creatures can't be marked. At low levels this is of little concern, but it's an immunity that crops up more frequently at higher levels, potentially limiting its use (then again, the knight has other features).

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Marking is replacing some other power the Knight should have received.

I still can't figure out what Marking has to do with the concept of the Knight, but that's another issue.

I think if you are going to go the "replacing some other power" route, you are obligated to provide another power so we can decide if your other power is more appropriate than the one you want replaced.