D&D General Vote Up a 5e-alike: Poll 6: Archetypes and Fighters/Warriors NOW WITH EXTREME FIRST DRAFT!

[Lanefan]

That's more like what I was assuming. I didn't write the question well, unsurprisingly. I imagine something like, fighters can start out proficient in, say, six weapons or weapon groups and can choose those from any weapons, but wizards start out proficient in two and can choose from a much smaller group of options.

Yes, though weapons rather then weapon groups.

Oh, and a side note that fits here: there should be more variety in weapon damage ranges, even to the point of using non-standard die sizes e.g. d7, 2d5, d9+1, etc.

That gets back into archetypes/subclasses though. Or a game where there's a hundred different classes, which is close enough.

I'd start with the hundred-class model and then do some very harsh paring down by looking at what of those hundred classes overlap with each other to the point that they might as well be combined. My rough guess is this would end up with about 25, of which well over half would be either warrior or rogue variants and the rest would cover all the other classes combined. Example: there really only need to be maybe three Cleric variants: Standard, Nature (replacing Druid) and War (maybe, in combination with a Knight/Cavalier class, replacing Paladin). There's room for a few book-based arcane classes and maybe one spontaneous-casting arcane class. Bard is Bard, no variants required. I could see a list ending up something like:

Fighter - Archer - Knight - Swashbuckler - Ranger(1) - Berserker
Thief - Assassin - Monk - Tinkerer(2) - Scout(3)
Standard Cleric - Nature Cleric - War Cleric
Wizard - Illusionist - Necromancer
Sorcerer OR Warlock OR Psion (pick one, ditch the other two)
Bard(4)

(1) - almost entirely non-casting, much more warrior-oriented than current, more Aragorn than Drizz't
(2) - a non-casting artificer whose niche involves knowing/figuring out how things work and-or engineering/making things
(3) - a class that really leans into stealth, observation, and perception
(4) - redesigned from the ground up using a bespoke-to-class ability system.

Oh, and no multiclassing, ever.

That's definitely a possibility! Whether it is multiplied or extra dice are added, that's one way to give fighters an edge.

Thanks. If Fighters didn't already do just fine in my own game I'd contemplate adding this in as a bonus - it's something I'd never thought of until I was typing it in the post you quoted.

What does the bolded bit mean?

I'd like to see social mechanics removed from the game.

For all items, or just for weapons and armor? Coz it'd be weird to me if a fighter could use more wands than a wizard.

Any items that a warrior can use; and as a corollary I'd like to see a return to there being a lot more class-specific or class-restricted items. That said, a Fighter with a bandolier of wands over her shoulder would be hella cool!

 

[Faolyn]

That only works if the foes don't have many hit points. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing an overall reduction in everyone's hit points; so maybe there's space for a cleave-like mechanic.

In 4e, from what I've heard, mooks had 1 hp each.

I don't know if this game willl go that far, but since we're going to try a Wounds system, then only tougher monsters, bosses, and the like will have Wounds.

 

[Lanefan]

In 4e, from what I've heard, mooks had 1 hp each.

Yes, and IMO this was utterly awful monster design in that when fighting other things - say, each other - those same "mooks" often had considerably more than 1 hit point each. This goes hard against my idea that hit points are something that stick with a creature (and help mechanically define it) just like its core stats do.

For example a particular PC has max. 37 hit points at its current level no matter whether at the moment it's fighting a single rat or a family of Frost Giants, and the same should apply to the monsters those PCs fight against: an Ogre that has max. 48 hit points should have those 48 points regardless whether it's currently fighting a single 1st-level street thief or a whole group of 18th-level badasses.

I don't know if this game willl go that far, but since we're going to try a Wounds system, then only tougher monsters, bosses, and the like will have Wounds.

The way I see it, every living creature has Body Points (a.k.a. Wound Points), even if that number is only the fraction of 1 BP that a mouse would have. A simple commoner has the same possible range of Body Points as does an experienced adventurer of the same species.

It's Fatigue/Vitality Points that not everyone has, as those are what come as you gain levels and-or experience.

 

[Faolyn]

At the moment, subclasses: yes is slightly ahead of subclasses: no, taking Lanefan's "everything should be it's own class!" to indicate subclasses. So I unless things change dramatically, I'm going to assume archetypes are go.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, though weapons rather then weapon groups.

Oh, and a side note that fits here: there should be more variety in weapon damage ranges, even to the point of using non-standard die sizes e.g. d7, 2d5, d9+1, etc.

I'd start with the hundred-class model and then do some very harsh paring down by looking at what of those hundred classes overlap with each other to the point that they might as well be combined. My rough guess is this would end up with about 25, of which well over half would be either warrior or rogue variants and the rest would cover all the other classes combined. Example: there really only need to be maybe three Cleric variants: Standard, Nature (replacing Druid) and War (maybe, in combination with a Knight/Cavalier class, replacing Paladin). There's room for a few book-based arcane classes and maybe one spontaneous-casting arcane class. Bard is Bard, no variants required. I could see a list ending up something like:

Fighter - Archer - Knight - Swashbuckler - Ranger(1) - Berserker
Thief - Assassin - Monk - Tinkerer(2) - Scout(3)
Standard Cleric - Nature Cleric - War Cleric
Wizard - Illusionist - Necromancer
Sorcerer OR Warlock OR Psion (pick one, ditch the other two)
Bard(4)

(1) - almost entirely non-casting, much more warrior-oriented than current, more Aragorn than Drizz't
(2) - a non-casting artificer whose niche involves knowing/figuring out how things work and-or engineering/making things
(3) - a class that really leans into stealth, observation, and perception
(4) - redesigned from the ground up using a bespoke-to-class ability system.

Oh, and no multiclassing, ever.

Thanks. If Fighters didn't already do just fine in my own game I'd contemplate adding this in as a bonus - it's something I'd never thought of until I was typing it in the post you quoted.

I'd like to see social mechanics removed from the game.

Any items that a warrior can use; and as a corollary I'd like to see a return to there being a lot more class-specific or class-restricted items. That said, a Fighter with a bandolier of wands over her shoulder would be hella cool!

Yes! I want to use my DCC dice more!

 

[Lanefan]

Yes! I want to use my DCC dice more!

Even without that, a d7 can be achieved trivially easily by rolling a d8 and re-rolling 8s.

And some of those odd-shaped DCC dice couldn't pass a chi-squared test if they bribed the judge.

 

[Milieu]

1. Archetypes: Yea or nay? By archetype, I mean the way they're currently done in 5e. If archetypes aren't done like that, they could be done in the sense of "to play a Green Knight, take this class, these options, and these feats," but you would still be free to deviate however you want.

EDIT: By archetypes, I mean subclasses.

Yea. I'm wary of trying to move all of the customization into feats, but I'd like a little more customization than 5e subclasses. Maybe at 10th level you can choose a sub-subclass.

2. If you want there to be archetypes, should all archetypes be taken at the same level? If so, what level? I would say level 2: it prevents 1-level dipping and represents a training period, while also not making you want too long for the cool stuff. Or should we have them still taken at various levels?

Not necessarily. I think if you're concerned about 1-level dipping, restrict 1-level dipping on the whole rather than force the classes to design around it.

3. Should all archetype features be granted at the same levels regardless of class--thus possibly allowing for different classes to take the same archetype? (I really liked the idea when it was presented in a UA, but it doesn't work at all with the current 5e setup.) In fact, should archetypes be limited by class, or should they be available to anyone who can meet the prereqs?

I don't get the appeal, to be honest. It's hard enough to get interesting and balanced subclasses for 1 class. It's much harder when designing for several. Plus, subclasses designed for multiple classes can't refer to any of the class-specific abilities, only add standalone ribbons or interact with more general mechanics like weapon mastery or spell slots. I guess I could understand a Master Archer thing that both fighters and rangers could share though.

It's also not necessary to grant all subclass features at the same levels to achieve multiclass archetypes. Instead, you could determine the levels archetype features are granted by the archetype, rather than the class. So, e.g., a Fighter and a Rogue who both take archetype Foo get their archetype abilities at levels 2, 7, 10, and 15, but a Fighter who takes the Bar archetype might get archetype abilities at levels 3, 8, 12, and 15. Admittedly, this will create a different kind of balancing difficulty.

4. Should there be a single Warrior class, and you can use in-class choices and feats to model barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins, etc. (including possibly things like swordmages)? For instance, at level 2, you can choose between a smite, a rage, beastmaster abilities, and other, more fighter-y abilities? Or should all those be separate classes?

5. Or should there be a single Warrior class but there are archetypes that model barbarians, rangers, swordmages, etc.? Remember, this is supposed to be a lower-magic, slightly gritty type of system.

I think at least some of those should remain classes, but I'm not opposed to paring them done a little where it makes sense.

6. Should there be Warlords/Marshals (a non-magical support class), or a similar option available via choices and feats? I don't like the Warlord name, but the class is fine and there are plenty of other options for names.

Not terribly interested, but not mad about it. Agree that it shouldn't be called Warlord.

7. Should we keep things like d10 Hit Dice for fighters and spending HD to regain hp at short rests and other such basics?

Fighters having d10 hit dice for increasing your max HP when levelling? Sure. HD as a resource at short rests? Less sure.

8. Should we keep short and long rests? The actual length of time for those rests doesn't matter right now; I just mean the concept.

Long rests? Yes. Short rests? Only if the classes are more evenly balanced around them (i.e., don't have some classes that depend mostly on short rests and other classes that don't care about them much if at all.)

Actual Fighter Questions
We have generally decided that classes are going to be mostly front-loaded, so assume that the abilities I'm talking about are going to be obtainable, at least in basic form, before 10th level.

1. Weapon Proficiencies: Should fighters be proficient in all weapons, or should we limit the number of weapons or weapon groups they know? If so, how many? Should fighters gain a Weapon Mastery ability which grants them benefits when using their favored weapon? If so, at what level(s)?

They should start with a broad range of proficiencies, multiple weapon groups, at least. But I'm honestly fine with them having proficiency in all non-exotic weapons. It's a little unrealistic, but so what? Favored weapon stuff maybe should just be folded into fighting styles. It makes sense that you get better at using a specific type of weapon, but in practice I find players, more than feeling cool for using their specialized weapon, feel bad when they find a cool magic weapon they're not specialized in and have to choose between the two. Fighting styles, to my mind, are a little more broad and cause less of that issue.

2. Fighting Styles: Should Fighting Styles be part of the Fighter class, or should they be represented solely by feats? If Fighting Styles are part of the Fighter class, should feats be available to enhance them (e.g., take the Archery style and the Sharpshooter feat), or should the styles increase in power and versatility as you go up in level, thus allowing you to spend feats on other options?

Should be open to all martial classes at least, but better for fighters. My initial thought is a fighting style is a feat, fighters get one for free, and when you get a style you get X points to spend in it + Y points per level, with bonus points for fighters?

3. Maneuvers: The Battle Master has a selection of 20+ maneuvers (including the ones from TCE) and grants Superiority Dice with which to use them. Level Up has a collection of well over 100 maneuvers, divided into Traditions and tiers (levels), requires the expenditure of exertion points to activate them, and all non-caster classes have access to at least some of them, although fighters get the most. Dungeon Crawl Classics, which I have never played or really read, apparently allows fighters to do whatever they want as long as they roll high enough on their deed die. Should our Fighters have maneuvers baked into the class (instead of being part of an archetype)? If so, should there be a short list of options (5e), a long list (LU), or should it be freeform (DCC)? Or something else? I'm inclined towards something a little more complicated than the Battle Master's maneuvers but far less complicate that Level Up's.

Not familiar with either of those, but Level Up's definitely sounds too complicated the way you describe it. I think they should be baked into the base Fighter class to some degree, but it's fine if other martial classes can get more limited access or there's an archetype than leans into it even harder. Maybe you learn maneuvers based on your fighting style, but can find more in martial arts scrolls, kind of like a wizard does with spells.

4. Expanded Criticals: Should all fighters gain increased crit ranges as they level up, like Champions? If you want archetypes, should they be limited to specific archetypes? Should masterwork weapons grant increased crit ranges?

Don't care.

5. Exploration Options: Level Up gives each class options that support the exploration pillar, such as by allowing for different or faster movement speeds, giving bonuses to various rolls when in certain environments, allowing the character to require less sleep or march longer without taking exhaustion, by gaining a new sense for a brief time, etc.? Should this be part of the fighter class, and by extension, all other classes?

Yes, and yes.

6. Social Options: Level Up also gives each class options that support the social pillar, by allowing bonuses to certain Charisma rolls at certain times or by causing others to have disad against the fighter at certain times. Should this be part of the fighter class, and by extension, all other classes?

Yes, and yes.

7. Specialized Knowledge: Should there be an option where you choose a particular type of fighter-related knowledge? Examples: gaining a bonus to rolls to know about weapons and armor, historical battles, or knightly orders, or to know how to set or detect ambushes, etc?

It's fine, but don't really care.

8. Action Surge/Extra Attacks: Should this be a thing, or should we use the 3x model where all classes can get multiple actions and attack as they increase in level, with a penalty to attack rolls if you take more than one? Regardless, how often should fighters gain extra attacks or actions? Some people have previously suggested at 5th, 10th, 15th, etc. levels.

I think it's fine how it is in 5e.

9. Indomitable: Should fighters keep this ability, or should they gain proficiency in a new save, both, or something else?

Don't care.

 

[Aldarc]

There should be a Warlord, albeit renamed to something like a Captain or Marshal.

 

[Corinnguard]

There should be a Warlord, albeit renamed to something like a Captain or Marshal.

Marshal | Level Up I am not sure if this version of the class from Level Up is the Marshal you've been looking for in 5e. It can be played in a 5e adventure.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm working on a rough draft of the Fighter now, with maneuvers being more like the current battlemaster maneuvers than the LU maneuvers.

People are divided on subclasses versus no subclasses-but-feats versus folding barbs, rangers, etc., in the fighter class versus those that want them to be their own class versus those who want there to be lots and lots of classes...

Thus, when I am done with this first draft, we should really decide once and for all how we're doing these classes. At the moment, I'm leaning towards ranger, paladin, barbarian, and warlord/marshal/captain/whatever being the archetypes. But we'll decide later. (And some people thought rangers should be rogues.)

But right now, we should think about combat. I'm going to assume that since this is a roll-under game, that the better the armor, the lower the AC. But we're including proficiency bonus and higher stat mods in this game.

In AD&D, combat was actually roll-over, not roll-under. THAC0 18 against AC 6 means you have to roll (18 - 6) 12 or higher. In fact, most things in AD&D1 were roll-over, except for straight ability checks. Which from what I've read weren't really a codified part of game, at least not from the start. But if we really want this game to be roll-under, then I would prefer if we kept all rolls, other than damage, as roll-under.

An unarmored AC is traditionally 10, but a 1st level character with a PB of -2 and a stat mod of -3 is going to be rolling under 10 a lot.

So what should we do? We could change it so that stat mods and the proficiency bonuses are smaller. We could make it so armor provides either less or more of a bonus, whichever would make it harder to hit. We could lean into it since we're also going to be doing wounds (based on Con), so it doesn't matter as much how much hit point damage you take because it's the wounds that will kill you and are hard to heal. (Maybe each time you get reduced to 0 hp, you take a wound; poisons, "level drain," and so on could also cause wounds.)