D&D General Vote Up a 5e-Alike: Fighter Draft 2, plus Archetypes (and a poll)

Warrior Questions

  • I like having the different martial classes as Warrior archetypes

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • No, this sucks; make the Fighter, Barbarian, and Paladin their own classes

    Votes: 7 53.8%
  • I like the idea of standardized bonuses/penalties to saving throws

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • No, don't do standardized saves like that, do it some other way (suggest in comments, please)

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • Bring back weapon sizes! Halfing-sized polearms ahoy!

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • No weapon sizes--that's too much extra detail.

    Votes: 6 46.2%
  • There are too many maneuvers (suggest which ones to remove)

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • There are a good amount of maneuvers here

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • There aren't enough maneuvers (suggest which ones to add)

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • Poll closed .

Faolyn

(she/her)
i had gotten the impression from previous conversations that the style this was going for was any archetype would be compatible with any base class that met it's prerequisites? that you could put a paladin archetype on a fighter or a rogue or a cleric to get three different results for example.
I don't think most people were too cool on that idea.

OTOH, when the other classes get done, the archetypes can be rewritten to fit them all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
I don't think most people were too cool on that idea.

OTOH, when the other classes get done, the archetypes can be rewritten to fit them all.
oh, it wasn't a popular idea? i can't say i noticed that opinion being voiced but maybe that was just tunnel vision on my part, the mix and match class design very much appeals to me personally
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
1 I like having lots of different maneuvers but wonder if they should be sorted by Fighting Styles or even grouped to Roles rather than just an alphabetical list. When building a character it would be nice to know if a given maneuver is going to help my 'Armor Master' or 'Bodyguard' or 'Duelist style' maybe add a Mobility style (swashbuckler) and a Commander.

2 I would rather Spells be kept out of the Fighter Archetypes entirely, even with the Holy Warrior. Give them Auras and more Channel Divinity powers instead or ship out to Cleric

3 I do think a Knight or Marshall/Commander Archetype would be a great addition (especially if Holy Warrior gets shipped out to Cleric)

4 Called Shots - while I like the mechanic of imposing conditions, I am wondering why only Archer gets them. Should it be available to all Fighters?

5 I'm also thinking your Origins list could be linked to Warrior Learnings
eg
ORIGIN 1d8
BONUS
WARRIOR LEARNING (Level 3)
1 You were recruited to the armySkill Expertise: Athletics

Extra: Military Rank -You also add your proficiency bonus to Charisma checks when dealing with military generals, soldiers, and veterans.
Military History Add your proficiency bonus when making checks to recall information about wars, military action, tactics, heroes of battles, and famous weapons and suits of armor.
2 You joined or were voluntold into the town’s militia or guard.
Skill Expertise : Insight
You also add your proficiency bonus to Charisma checks made when dealing with other Guards, Town officials and criminals.
Bounty Hunter: Add your proficiency bonus when making checks to recall information about criminals and mercenaries, how to find your way around an urban environment, and on rolls made to track humanoids
3 You were a squire to a knight or otherwise trained in the company of nobility
Skill Expertise: Persuasion
You also add your proficiency bonus to Charisma checks when dealing with nobility, courtiers, and politicians
Champion of the Court: Add your proficiency bonus when making checks to recall information about nobles, heraldry, and politics.
4 You learned on the streets, at the school of hard knocks.
Skill Expertise: Survival (Urban)
You also add your proficiency bonus to Charisma checks made when dealing with the people who are important in the city str.
Street Fighter: Add your proficiency bonus when making checks to recall information about a city’s layout, as well as when you are looking for locations and contacts in the city.
5 You were sent to a prestigious training school
Skill Expertise: Investigation
You also add your proficiency bonus to Charisma checks made when dealing with the people who are important in the city.
Urbane Fighter: Add your proficiency bonus when making checks to recall information about a city’s history, as well as when you are looking for important people and locations in that city.
6 You were mentored by someone who had been a fighter of some renown in their heyday and chose you to pass their knowledge onto- maybe a parent or other older relative, a local hermit, or a mendicant warrior
.Skill Expertise: Nature
You also add your proficiency bonus when dealing with other Adventurers and with the victims of the monsters you are hunting
Monster Hunter: Add your proficiency bonus when making checks to recall information about three types of monsters chosen from the following list: aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, giants, monstrosities, oozes, or undead
7 You learned in the wilderness, hunting beasts and learning to surviveSkill Expertise: Survival
You also add your proficiency bonus to Charisma checks made with other humanoids who live in the wilderness.
Wilderness Warrior: Add your proficiency bonus when making checks to recall information about beasts and plants, about natural environments, and on rolls made to survive in the wilderness.
8 Nobody taught you; you are naturally talented in physical activities including weapon handling
Skill Expertise: Athletics
You also add your proficiency bonus to Charisma checks made with people who have witnessed your talent
Natural Athlete: Add your proficiency bonus when making checks to recall information about different Fighting styles and on athletics rolls

 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Wow! Nice work so far @Faolyn - you definitely have the tenacity needed for this sort of class design.

While I'm not part of the Vote-Up endeavor,
Join us... join us...

I welcome any constructive criticism!

I can offer my feedback on the core Warrior class that you are developing, with a focus on big picture / conceptual things.

I think you have a couple things working really well. I want to first call those out, and perhaps suggest ways you might intensify those aspects of design (if you're so inclined)...
  • Origin as class feature – While I don't know how this would interact with Multiclassing (if that's a thing), it's wonderful flavor. If you want this to also have a mechanical impact on the character, that could be neat (Beyond the Wall's playbooks do this), e.g. skill proficiencies, certain default class info, starting gear – these could be influenced by rolls/choices on the Origin tables. That would be a very distinctive design direction differentiating what you're doing from 5e / 5e-alikes.
I imagine that they will only be used for your first class--IME, most people who multiclass don't do so after a long-enough training time to really warrant getting three new contacts--it's either a meta-decision or something happens in-game to justify the multiclassing. There will be times, though, when a long training period will be appropriate, such as if there's a timeskip. I imagine that whether or not the origins will be used for the new class will be a GM decision.

I do own Beyond The Wall. I just haven't read it thoroughly yet. I suffer from Too Many Game Books syndrome.

  • Fighting Styles with additional bonuses – This works nicely to deepen an early character choice. I have two thoughts: First, would be nice to see a dedicated Versatile weapon fighting style letting you use the weapon as a shield or somesuch. Second, bonuses to AC or Attack are valued higher in 5e than bonuses to damage – i.e. it's not a +1 AC or Attack = +1 Damage ratio. 1: 2 is probably more fair, and even that is not quite true at mid to higher levels.
  • Warrior Learnings – A nice bit of flavor! It does play oddly if, say, you have proficiency in History and Courtly Leanings... are you then applying 2x proficiency bonus? Narratively, it's also a bit confusing if, say, levels 1-3 deal with a borderlands scenario and the player decides to choose Courtly Leanings at 3rd level... what does that mean? But the idea of the warrior's story continuing to develop (and being reflected mechanically) beyond 1st level / archetype level is something I think would be worth exploring as a design choice.
Good points--that's definitely something that needs to be made clearer. If, as you say, you're proficient in History and have Champion of the Court, then I can see three options: you get to add your PB even if you're doing so twice, or, you only add your PB if you're not proficient, or, you can add half your PB, even if you are proficient.

I've seen the second option--add PB if you're not proficient--quite often in 5e, but can make the trait useless if you're already proficient in History or various Charisma skills.

I'm thinking that I should change it to half PB, no matter what. I'll also switch it to just Intelligence checks. Makes me think, though, that there should be a Common Knowledge skill, and History should be used for historical things (my current DM likes to use it as a Common Knowledge skill, and I've never been sure how I feel about that.)

As for your potential scenario... yeah, it can happen, I know. One would hope that the player would take a Learning that was appropriate to the way they've been playing so far, but we all know that's not going to happen with every player.

  • Reputation – A great thing to include IMO, showcasing that skilled warriors in your system always have reputations - that's good implicit worldbuilding. Mechanically (1/rest advantage Charisma check) it kind of sucks, but conceptually I think it has lots of potential.
Another good point. Hmm. PB times per long rest? As many times as you like, but only once per individual (or group) per long rest?

  • Maneuvers, so many maneuvers – You're not at LevelUp degree of maneuvers, but it's definitely a lot. This isn't necessarily a problem, but it does beg a question "Is this system intended to be more complex / involve more player character creation choices compared to a 5e baseline? Or is it intended to be less complex?" I'm not clear from this design, but I think you're aiming for a slight increase in complexity?
Yeah, the consensus is definitely to reduce the number. I've started to look through the list to see which ones can be either combined or just tossed.

  • Weapon Specialization – This exists in an ecosystem. If that ecosystem involves a player finding one or two magic weapons and being able to consistently rely on those in most scenes to bypass most monster resistances, Weapon Specialization is a perfect fit. However... if you're deviating from that assumption with a different ecosystem (e.g. wildly hacking monster resistances or magic weapons), then you may want to reconsider Weapon Specialization...for example "Bonded Weapon" can work similarly without requiring defining a type of weapon and simply being a specific weapon they've acquired.
  • Weapon Mastery – This relates to my point below about giving new things to warriors, but I wonder if the fantasy drawing people to continue playing a high level warrior who has mastered a weapon is "roll better damage dice"? Or is it more nuanced than that? There's nothing poorly designed here – it works totally fine and it's simple – but I think it's a good question to ask: Is this feature fulfilling the player fantasy we are trying to fulfill?
I'll take these into consideration. The game is supposed to be at least a bit grittier than regular D&D--hence the reduced number of hit dice--rather than more power-game, and hopefully the use of maneuvers for all martials will aid those who want more than just more damage dice.

  • Lack of new things at high levels – The weight of the NEW things (not improved existing things) a warrior can do after 9th level are really defined by your Martial Archetype. In this way, I see it repeating one of the flaws of the 5e Fighter class. Now, if you don't see that as a flaw, then you're totally fine, nothing to see here. If you do see that as a concern, however, it's worth interrogating whether you want all of the NEW stuff for high level warriors to be consolidated in Martial Archetypes AND whether your Martial Archetypes are actually giving NEW stuff.
Well, the archetypes are definitely rough drafts, and these particular ones are just either common tropes or classes reimagined into archetypes.

I'm taking two things into consideration with the archetypes. One, people mentioned wanting an open-ending system. Unlike D&D, which pretty much stops at 20th level, a lot of people wanted the game to go on to a potentially infinite number of levels. And two, we all know most games don't even get to 15th level. So my actual goal--and I admit I likely did not accomplish it this draft--is to front-load abilities and to have those early abilities continually improve as you go up in level. Hence why most of the abilities say you get another bonus or whatever every X levels.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
1 I like having lots of different maneuvers but wonder if they should be sorted by Fighting Styles or even grouped to Roles rather than just an alphabetical list. When building a character it would be nice to know if a given maneuver is going to help my 'Armor Master' or 'Bodyguard' or 'Duelist style' maybe add a Mobility style (swashbuckler) and a Commander.

2 I would rather Spells be kept out of the Fighter Archetypes entirely, even with the Holy Warrior. Give them Auras and more Channel Divinity powers instead or ship out to Cleric

3 I do think a Knight or Marshall/Commander Archetype would be a great addition (especially if Holy Warrior gets shipped out to Cleric)

4 Called Shots - while I like the mechanic of imposing conditions, I am wondering why only Archer gets them. Should it be available to all Fighters?
Completely agree with (2) and (4) here; though I'd expand called shots to be available to anyone as a universal rule if they're to be included at all.

I also agree with (3) and (1) except I shudder at the idea of any sort of "Commander" class or archetype. There might be design space for a Tactician, if that's what you're after, but I'm not sure it would have enough to do in play without it turning into a de-facto party boss (which is what I very much want to avoid, hence no Commander).
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
1 I like having lots of different maneuvers but wonder if they should be sorted by Fighting Styles or even grouped to Roles rather than just an alphabetical list. When building a character it would be nice to know if a given maneuver is going to help my 'Armor Master' or 'Bodyguard' or 'Duelist style' maybe add a Mobility style (swashbuckler) and a Commander.
They almost certainly should be. I'm going over them now and trying to figure out which ones to keep and which to get rid of, so I'll try also sorting them by type.

2 I would rather Spells be kept out of the Fighter Archetypes entirely, even with the Holy Warrior. Give them Auras and more Channel Divinity powers instead or ship out to Cleric
I agree very much. I wouldn't mind giving them a cantrip like guidance, but I have no problem with them not having anything more powerful than that.

3 I do think a Knight or Marshall/Commander Archetype would be a great addition (especially if Holy Warrior gets shipped out to Cleric)

4 Called Shots - while I like the mechanic of imposing conditions, I am wondering why only Archer gets them. Should it be available to all Fighters?
Yeah, it should be. I'm thinking it should be a general rule instead of an Archer rule.

5 I'm also thinking your Origins list could be linked to Warrior Learnings
I like this but--people can still make their own origins; the tables are just suggestions. So I could do something like that as examples and give a suggestion on how to do your own.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Let's reduce the number of maneuvers
Since yes, there are far too many. The following maneuvers (with abbreviated descriptions) let you add your maneuver die to your damage roll and we don't need all of them. I'm currently ignoring the maneuvers that are sub-maneuvers of one that doesn't give you that damage bonus (like Read Opponent, which has Assessment as a pre-req). Which of these maneuvers should be kept, which can be removed entirely, and which can turned into a sub-maneuver.

Charge: Take Dash as a bonus action, make an attack and add maneuver die to damage. Has two sub-maneuvers, one of which allows you to inflict your maneuver die on the creatures you trample as you charge past them.

Cleave: Add maneuver die to damage roll and make another attack against a second creature.

Confusing Blow: Add maneuver die to damage roll and either give an ally advantage on its next attack against the creature or cause the creature to have disad on its next attack (until start of your next turn).

Disarming Strike: Add maneuver die to damage roll and force target to make a Reflexes save or drop an object that it is holding.

Doubleshot: Fire two missiles/pieces of ammo with one attack roll. If you hit, you roll damage die twice and add maneuver die. One of its sub-maneuver, Manyshot, allows you to roll damage dice three times and add maneuver, spreading the dice among either one or two targets.

Doublestrike: Attack with two weapons with one attack roll. If you hit, you roll damage die twice and add maneuver die.

Drive Back: Add maneuver die to damage roll and force target to make a Fortitude save or you and the target move up to half your speed in a direction of your choice. I think this is redundant with Powerful Shove.

Focus Their Attention: Add maneuver die to damage roll and force target to make a Will save or it has disad on attacks made against targets other than you. Its sub-maneuver, Draw Attention, lets your ally make an attack and add half the maneuver die to their damage roll.

Frightful Attack: Add maneuver die to damage roll and force target to make a Will save or become frightened of you until the end of your next turn.

Lunge: Add maneuver die to damage roll and increase your reach by 5 feet.

Make Them Fall: If a creature misses on an opportunity attack against you, you can expend a maneuver die and force it to make a Reflexes save or fall prone, and you can then use your reaction to attack and add maneuver die to damage roll. I think maybe I should get rid of this one, because it's so circumstantial.

Mighty Blow: Add maneuver die to damage roll and force target to make a Fortitude save or have its speed reduced to 0.

Opportunistic Blow: Add maneuver die to damage of opportunity attack. I just realized that if maneuvers aren't limited to being usable only on your turn, then this isn't necessary--when you make an opportunity attack, you can just use a maneuver.

Powerful Shove: Add maneuver die to damage roll and force target to make a Fortitude save or either be pushed 15 feet away or fall prone. Perhaps Mighty Blow should be a sub-maneuver of this one.

Quickfire:
Add maneuver die to damage roll of either a missile weapon or a thrown weapon; can draw ammo/weapon as part of attack.

Ranged Opportunity Attack: Add maneuver die to damage roll of a ranged attack. This could be a sub-maneuver of Quickfire. Or vice versa.

Riposte: When attacked and missed, use reaction to spend maneuver die to attack that creature, add maneuver die to damage roll.

Skillful Feint: Use bonus action to expend maneuver die to gain advantage on attack roll against a creature, add maneuver die to damage roll. Is this redundant with Confusing Blow?

Sniper: Make Stealth check, use bonus action to expend maneuver die to make a ranged attack and add maneuver die to damage roll.

Tactical Orders: Use bonus die to direct ally to attack, add maneuver die to their damage roll. This probably needs a sub-maneuver allowing you to give this ability to multiple allies.

Target Enemy:
Add maneuver die to attack rolls against a specific type of creature; sub-maneuver also lets you add maneuver die to damage rolls at same time. Maybe I should get rid of this maneuver altogether and simply create a Monster Hunter archetype.

Throw Object: Throw non-weapon objects for d6 damage, add maneuver die to damage roll.

Trick Shot: Ignore non-total cover when making a ranged attack, add maneuver die to damage roll.

Wildstrike: If you hit with all available attacks, expend maneuver die to make additional attack, add maneuver die to damage roll.

Work Together: Choose a target, next ally that makes a melee attack against it adds maneuver die their damage roll.

---

Anyway. Thoughts on which maneuvers to remove or combine?
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
OK, it seems like most people want all the martial classes as their own thing, but I gotta say, I honestly like them a lot better as archetypes.

Paladin could easily be a multiclass between a holy warrior and a cleric, if I remove the spells from the holy warrior. A berserker's primary shtick is really just their rage. Everything else--like having a totem or channeling storms or what have you, could easily be its own warrior subclasses or even feats.
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
OK, it seems like most people want all the martial classes as their own thing, but I gotta say, I honestly like them a lot better as archetypes.

Paladin could easily be a multiclass between a holy warrior and a cleric, if I remove the spells from the holy warrior. A berserker's primary shtick is really just their rage. Everything else--like having a totem or channeling storms or what have you, could easily be its own warrior subclasses or even feats.

I think feats is the way to go with things like giving Holy Warriors access to a spells or do "Storm Barbarian" especially with the upgraded background and feat design space opened up by Strixhaven and Dragonlance - maybe a full Cross Classing feature could be looked at as an alternative to multiclassing.
Holy Warrior gets to take the Divine Initiate background Feat to gain a selection of Cleric spells
Barbarian can take a Totem Power Feat to gain the Holy Warriors smite etc etc

so the Class itself remains Martial but with an ability to customise via feats
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
maybe it's just cause i thought the class/archetype mix-n-match aspect and choose-your-own class building blocks design was much more supported in the initial stages of these threads but seeing 'fighter/barb/paladin should be their own classes' be so high voted is throwing me and kind of feel like a reversal of interests. though i must assume it's the same people voting in these polls and we haven't got a different crowd for different polls
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top