Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Vote Up a 5e-alike: Poll 6: Archetypes and Fighters/Warriors NOW WITH EXTREME FIRST DRAFT!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Milieu" data-source="post: 9177850" data-attributes="member: 7041560"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>It's also not <em>necessary</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Not terribly interested, but not mad about it. Agree that it shouldn't be called Warlord.</p><p></p><p>Fighters having d10 hit dice for increasing your max HP when levelling? Sure. HD as a resource at short rests? Less sure.</p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Don't care.</p><p></p><p>Yes, and yes.</p><p></p><p>Yes, and yes.</p><p></p><p>It's fine, but don't really care.</p><p></p><p>I think it's fine how it is in 5e.</p><p></p><p>Don't care.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Milieu, post: 9177850, member: 7041560"] 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. 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. 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 [I]necessary[/I] 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. 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. Not terribly interested, but not mad about it. Agree that it shouldn't be called Warlord. Fighters having d10 hit dice for increasing your max HP when levelling? Sure. HD as a resource at short rests? Less sure. 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.) 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. 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? 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. Don't care. Yes, and yes. Yes, and yes. It's fine, but don't really care. I think it's fine how it is in 5e. Don't care. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Vote Up a 5e-alike: Poll 6: Archetypes and Fighters/Warriors NOW WITH EXTREME FIRST DRAFT!
Top