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

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

 

[mrpopstar]

There's a vast amount of insight and opinion to be found in this thread. I do sincerely hope that each and every one of the contributors (and lurkers reading intently) complete the survey. I find all of this is valid, and I want all of this shaping our game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Bolded for emphasis. Try to think outside your own world and you just might. Like I said in that post that you quoted (and obviously ignored), several people think the fluff of the game is important on how characters grow and progress

Keep your badwrongfun accusations to yourself. Not allowing every player to do whatever they want, especially when it's contradictory to the game world, is not "God-gming all over their fun." You can take that entitled attitude and burn it. I don't think I'm being all that unreasonable to tell a player who has spent their entire profession so far being a raging barbarian with no self control over their anger issues suddenly becoming a class that's built around etiquette, always following orders, and self control. Not without a dang good reason for it in game at any rate.

I didn't do any of that, but ok.

But anyway, what is this about anger issues and lack of control? Is that how your players play barbarians? Like, the only way? I'll admit I've seen it, but less frequently than I've seen rage as a thing he barbarian is the master of, that they enter intentionally and are in control of. It's an ability, for most players I know, not a loss of control.

-shrug- like I said, you do you, it's your game.

Honestly, if the specific example of a no control barbarian suddenly becoming a classic samurai is the whole of your issue with the multiclass, you did a poor job communicating that. Most MC characters, at least IME, are planned out as a combination of the two things, not just a knight randomly deciding he is also a wizard 4 levels into the game.

And in that context, there is no rational reason a person couldn't be a totem warrior and an honor bound samurai. Or a character who was trained as a samurai and has abandoned or been pushed out of that life, or any number of other things.

And if you are enforcing your insistence that every samurai character is the archetypal samurai, all about control and honor and following orders, to the point where you consider deviation fromthat to be a problem you fix by not allowing it, then yeah you are god-dming all over the fun of any player that wants to play a samurai who isn't very good at the social/hierarchal aspects of the concept, or who actively rejects it, or whatever.

I mean. That is a HYPER specific take on a samurai character, that fails to allow for real world history, or the breadth and depth of fictional samurai stories and characters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree with the premise, but I don't see why a character can't be a samurai or ronin regardless of their class or class combo. Not all samurai are courtly and urbane. Or even warriors. This is one of the reasons I'm not keen to things like "knights", "samurai", "cataphract", "centurion", "spartans", etc. being classes or subclasses--it creates too much conceptual baggage.

Great points. OTOH I'm fine with classes and subclasses that mechanically represent a thing in terms of general expectations of the thing. The Knight represents what most ppl think of when they think of a Knight, samurai is focused on the "classic" katana focused guy from samurai movies, etc. doesn't bother me, but I do think a sidebar on different kinds of samurai and how they might be represented using existing options would be useful.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Knight is a background in the PHB. Then their is the fighter Subclass Purple Dragon Knight in the SCAG. In the PHB Paladins are refered to as Knights in the fluff and their powers seem to back that up. So the question becomes how many Knights can dance on the head of a pin.

As always, at least one more.


Seriously, I want enough knights to fill multiple broad organizations with multiple orders each with mechanically distinct knights.

There is no such thing as too many classes or subclasses or ways to represent a concept.

 

[MechaPilot]

I'm about tired with this oft-repeated implication of "If you don't like my preference, then something is wrong with you."

It's perfectly fine to dislike someone else's preference; that's an inherent facet of people having differing preferences. It's not okay to take the position that what someone else likes should not ever be added to the game when no one is required to use the option or allow it at their table.

Oh, and [MENTION=6777078]RotGrub[/MENTION] thanks for being civil and not making things personal. I hope you have a lovely holiday.

 

[Azzy]

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"

Right here you've just descended into utter petulence. You don't like marking, then don't allow the subclass in your games. Stop trying to enforce your particular views on what others should have in their games.

 

[RotGrub]

Right here you've just descended into utter petulence. You don't like marking, then don't allow the subclass in your games. Stop trying to enforce your particular views on what others should have in their games.

oh yeah... remove the entire subclass..... such a great option. Why not be a nice and inclusive publisher and create subclass with optional 4e styled rules? Of course, my group is happy being in the optional ghetto provided that ghetto is provided... otherwise, don't tempt me to take your publications seriously. Don't claim you have a rule-set for everyone.

 

[Colder]

To go back to the Christmas Dinner metaphor, you're pitching a fit because you hate mushrooms and the green bean casserole was made using cream of mushroom soup. "I dont like mushrooms," you seem to be saying. "If my family really loved me they'd not put a single dish that has mushrooms on the table." Never mind that your brother likes green bean casserole with mushroom soup the most and he's been waiting for years because cream of celery just doesn't taste the same.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

oh yeah... remove the entire subclass..... such a great option. Why not be a nice and inclusive publisher and create subclass with optional 4e styled rules? Of course, my group is happy being in the optional ghetto provided that ghetto is provided... otherwise, don't tempt me to take your publications seriously. Don't claim you have a rule-set for everyone.

Except its a great solution! People who can conceive of marking get to use it in their games, you don't have to use it in yours. You're no worse off than before something else was added to the game for the benefit of others. It's not like the noble warrior couldnt be modeled previously in 5E.

The only time it might matter is in an open table like at a convention or adventurer's league, in which case you should be expected to shut up and deal with it or walk, because one person shouldn't get to dictate everyone else's character.

 

[Istbor]

Isn't there still the Cavalier out there? Couldn't that be used as a mechanically different knight with little to no augmentation? I honestly thought that as soon as we got this Knight template. "Another mounted warrior? Alright. I can see that this one it a bit different with defense as a key component."

I think a tanky battlefield controlling fighter is fine. (they could have left out the mounted stuff really) I doubt it will see play at my table should it hit actual books, but I wouldn't mind someone playing it, and I want it to be out there as an option for my friends who like to play the 'tank'.

Anyhow, all of this talk about food has me hungry.