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

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

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Completely incorrect. My opinion is that there should be options for everyone. What I don't agree with is how these options are being prescribed. In this case, I'd rather see a Knight sub class that is modular and not exclusive to a particular style of play without modification.

With that said, there is no need to be angry. At this rate, I do predict that 4e justice warriors will get their warlord subclass. It's only mater of time now.

Completely incorrect. My opinion is that there should be options for everyone. What I don't agree with is how these options are being prescribed. In this case, I'd rather see a Knight sub class that is modular and not exclusive to a particular style of play without modification.

With that said, there is no need to be angry. At this rate, I do predict that 4e justice warriors will get their warlord subclass. It's only mater of time now.

The subclass is essentially built on marking. Subclasses are already modular. It's far easier to just make a separate subclass that doesnt use marking. What would you be missing out on? The ribbons? The minor diplomacy boost and mounted combat perk? You can make a great knight in the PHB as is. What you can't make is a decent 4E style defender.

And warlord needs to be its own class, because there isnt enough room in a few subclass features for the class. Plus it would fall on the multiattacking damage machine that's the fighter. In order for it to have robust support like warlord fans want, the extra feats, attacks, HP, etc need to go.

 

[The Human Target]

4e Justice Warriors?

Your opinion was already pretty thin on credibility, but there goes the rest of it.

Rot grub indeed.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And you obviously do not want this. You go so far as using degradory terminology to describe us fans of 4e. You make me sad. I wish our community could be better than this hateful morrass.

4e Justice Warriors?

Your opinion was already pretty thin on credibility, but there goes the rest of it.

Rot grub indeed.

Him being called a h4ter? Perfectly fine. But oh man, he called someone a 4e Justice Warrior. How DARE he!

LOL You guys are funny.

For the record, I think him saying that was just as antagonizing and irresponsible as everyone else prior in this thread referring to others as h4ters, but the double standard is up there on politics levels.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If someone is demanding that someone else not get their option, then yes, that's just as selfish as someone demanding TO get that option, and there's nothing wrong with saying, "that's pretty selfish." What's not OK is stuff like this:

No it's not. I realize this is the year of false equivalency, but that REALLY isn't the same. To use an example with bigger stakes, the guy demanding that others not be allowed to be married is the bigger jerk than those just wanting to get married. And he at least gets to use religion as an excuse for his bigotry!

 

[The Human Target]

Him being called a h4ter? Perfectly fine. But oh man, he called someone a 4e Justice Warrior. How DARE he!

LOL You guys are funny.

For the record, I think him saying that was just as antagonizing and irresponsible as everyone else prior in this thread referring to others as h4ters, but the double standard is up there on politics levels.

I meant that by using 4e Justice Warrior he's proven to probably be the kind of angry troll human who spends all his time online complaining about Social Justice Warriors.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No it's not. I realize this is the year of false equivalency, but that REALLY isn't the same. To use an example with bigger stakes, the guy demanding that others not be allowed to be married is the bigger jerk than those just wanting to get married. And he at least gets to use religion as an excuse for his bigotry!

If you're going to accuse someone of false equivalency, then don't immediately use a false equivalency. For one, D&D is not civil rights. Secondly, D&D design has a finite amount of resources. That analogy only works if the person presiding over the people who want to get married is the same person who is doing something for the other person and a choice has to be made who they will support, and that's not true.

If I demand that 5e make up a rules packet including save or die and level drain, that means they are spending their time on that and not what more people than me want. And that is the very definition of being selfish.

But even all of that aside, that still doesn't excuse you insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

These are explanations of the sort that we heard before by 4e apologists. All of these explanations are dependent on the targets state of mind being manipulated and/or an undefined physical obstruction.

If marking is a form of mind warping, the target is being modified with complete disregard for its personality and psychological state, and it's being done without a saving throw.

If it's a physical obstruction, not only is the implied fear mechanic pointless, marking says nothing about the battlefield (distance, doors, corners, walls, spells, reach weapon situations, etc. ) that should logically prevent it from functioning.

Marking is an example of a 4e styled power that requires the mechanic-first narrative-later (if at all) style of play. Many old school gamers work from the narrative and use mechanics as means to an end.

This is why the Knight and Samurai are useless for my group. These sub classes are just a collection of mechanical porn and are not evocative of their named archetypes.

Lastly, pointing out that these UA sub classes are failing to consider other styles of play isn't whining. We should ALL want everyone's style of play to be supported. I'm all for the 4e justice warriors eating their cake, but when it's the only cake being offered in UA, don't pretend 5e is a game for everyone. That may have been a noble goal during the playtest, but the direction of support by WotC has moved away from that vision.

Gosh, that's an awful lot of baggage! Are you sure you don't want to put some of it down? 4e... apologists? 4e Justice Warriors? I think that's more than a little inappropriate, particularly considering the political implications of the latter. A lot of people started playing with 4e, love 4e, and consider it an important part of DND, let's try to avoid othering them shall we?

Anyway, I think you're sort of straw-manning the arguments of people whom happen to be pro-mark! I don't think anyone would argue the effect is that extreme, it represents the stress, physical, or in some cases magical interference of a warrior trained (as defined by their selection of class, or in this case, subclass) to protect others.

Marks take a variety of forms, the basic mark is a -2 to a single monster, a verbal distraction- or a threatening stance, or an aggressive pushing attack, where the onslaught is designed not to land a hit, but keep the foe right here. Class marks, which are the ones usually used, vary considerably which is probably why the default presentation is so abstract- a fighter is standing ready to cleave them in two should they drop their guard to attack someone else. A sword mage has a magical shield ready to spring up if their allies are attacked, like a hex. In fact it's only the fighter that even relies on non-magical effects for it.

Marks might also be enforced in different ways, the act of marking someone, is a reference to marking them out for special treatment so to speak. We have the magical shields of the sword mage, or maybe it's a verbal onslaught that keeps an intelligent foe off balance- a threatening stance that keeps an animal wary, or a partial tackle as that golem tries to attack your buddy, timed to physically throw their attack off. The trick of it is that the character is inventively doing something as part of defending their allies. In a way, it's very freeing- because the mark can represent a variety of things, it models a lot of different things.

If the player says "I'm going to watch him and try to tackle him to throw their attack off" the DM would normally have to adjudicate some janky way of handling it, or say no. If the player says "I'm going to get him to focus on me by taunting his mother" the DM would normally again, just sort of fiat if it can work. But these are pretty core aspects of combat, so its nice to have an abstract mechanic- "Ok so you have them marked, they'll take a penalty if they try to attack someone else" -to implement to cover such situations where the character is harassing their opponent to throw them off of other people.

But such abstract mechanics that are "mechanics first" have always featured prominently in the game, take for instance HP- it doesn't do a great job of simulating meat, and it's kind of annoying think of something as "hitting but not hitting" yet it's always been constructed that way. How about Treasure as exp in very early editions? That made players stronger by spending money REGARDLESS of what they spent their money on, why your strength would be proportional to the money found in that way is nonsensical. AC is another such element of the game that depends on abstraction- in the real world maces that could collapse plate were more effective against people in armor, not less, but in DND, you might as well have dodged it completely.

People's wounds typically knit themselves up over night, and a single 8 hours of rest brings pretty much every character from almost dead to good as new, but that isn't narrative-breaking? In editions prior to 4e, there were spells that could detect alignment in the default game- "Well regardless of anything else, my evil-radar says you're evil so never mind any intrigue or moral questions!" and adventuring parties are often made up of people whom seriously hate and would never realistically travel together.

Your rant about how an effect with a variable narrative is ridiculous just seems absurd given the basic premises of the game we're talking about.

About that last bit, you're going to have to run by me again how 4e mechanics are the only thing in UA? Because if that's the case I haven't been seeing it- it seems like the majority of the subclasses and classes in UA have been using the "modified 2e, modified 3.5e" design that most of the PHB uses. Mostly vancian casting spellcasters, and martials that hit things with their sword, with some neat utility. Especially out of the recent UA's I feel that this is the first one with any real 4e inspiration- mostly just in the shape of the marking technique of the knight, and the "special arrow" powers of the Arcane Archer. At best, the samurai feels like essentials design ( i hit things! and i get to add neat stuff using rest based resources to hit things better) but since essentials was employing a unified design dynamic where some of the more successful 4e principles were applied to more traditional DND designs in a less extreme way... that kinda seems to be the gold standard for the actual goal of 5e, which is to create a unified DND tabletop.

There is no other way to BE included, other than to have some options that do cater to the fans of 4e's design... the same way we have things that cater to design choices from earlier editions. It kinda seems like someone who likes 4e would be over stepping to you, unless there was none of the things that represent them in the game. It's not like a knight is hard to play without happening to have the word knight in your subclass- it COULD be a background, or a battlemaster, or many other things, the fact that this is called a knight is because they sat down to think of a fighter kit specifically for that, and realized that this mechanic was the best fit. Why not avoid it to make knights you do like, and let people who like it use it to make their knights?

 

[RotGrub]

I would suggest it is more a case of the physical acts of the knight having an effect on the mental attitude of the marked target. Its no more "mind warping" than the Help action or a Charisma(Intimidate) check.

uh yeah, cause "reasons"

This response fails to address all the situations I mentioned. For example, Spells that dominate the mind can change a targets mental state instantly, and yet they don't remove a mark. And if we take your physical explanation seriously, what happens when a portcullis drops between the knight and the target? We can talk all day long about exceptions and how DMs will or won't rule on them, but the more you describe how it works the more problems and exceptions it creates. Of course, at that point, you'll probably advise we just stop thinking too much about it "cause reasons".

Not really. You can narrate the action just fine as a description of what your character is doing to apply the mechanics of the action. Its no more mechanic-first than casting a fireball spell.

Explanation for Fireball = magic, but for Marking? yeah.... I have a hand full of narrative straws, lets see if you run out.

If none of your group wants to play a Fighter with the capabilities outlined in those subclasses, that is entirely their decision. Its been pointed out a couple of times that the name of the subclasses is pretty independent of their flavour. A Samurai-concept character could be a Fighter Champion, Knight, Samurai, Sharpshooter, Paladin etc.

So names and flavour are now independent of mechanics? .. you just proved my entire point. That's the 4e motto. That design doesn't sit well with many and it's one of the reasons people didn't like 4e.

You are not "pointing out that these UA sub classes are failing to consider other styles of play". Pointing out implies a visible existence. You're making a claim about the decisions, motives etc of the 5e devs based on your personal opinion only.

Yes, IMO (notice the capital letters).

Now you're telling me that I'm not saying what I'm saying.. funny. If my last statement didn't work for you I can say it again, "I am pointing that these UA sub classes are failing to consider other styles of play"

 

[Sacrosanct]

"I am pointing that these UA sub classes are failing to consider other styles of play"

Um, they all pretty much do, and always have though. There are many styles of play, some of them contradictory to each other. Every single UA subclass is going to be exclusionary of someone.

 

[RotGrub]

4e Justice Warriors?

Your opinion was already pretty thin on credibility, but there goes the rest of it.

Rot grub indeed.

I didn't know those cute little critters triggered you.