D&D 5E What Subclasses would you like to see?

Unadvisedgoose

First Post
You can play one, but not effectively. Because the D&D rules favor the stand-in-place in your armor fighters.

I completely disagree. Your position is that only one type of fighter can be an effective fighter. There's no reason for that to be true.

I think you're missing the point. Your answer to my point that the swashbuckler trope has been consistently neglected by D&D over the years; either absent, or poorly implemented, is that D&D has a trope of fighters being heavily armored to be successful.

Well, yes. Exactly my point. Thank you for the completely circular discussion.

There are few things more irritating than pointing out a consistent problem with D&D rules (another one would be lack of good chase rules, but that's neither here nor there) just to have someone tell me that clearly I need to be playing some other game then, because D&D doesn't address my problem.

No kidding. That's why I'm expressing the problem. And the notion that the only solution is "bloat" is simply not true.

Clearly MMdoesV.

It probably seems like I'm being confrontational at this point but I promise I'm just curious. What about the fighter's features seems to heavily suggest using heavy armor? As far as I can tell, there aren't any features that actually have anything to do with the type of armor you're wearing. And the vast majority don't even imply you must be in melee. Am I missing something?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Unadvisedgoose

First Post
Check out these Pinterest searches. How many of them do you see wearing armor, much less medium or heavy armor? This is pretty much why it needs to allow unarmored.

* http://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?q=fantasy duelist
* http://www.pinterest.com/search/pin...=fantasy|typed&term_meta[]=swashbuckler|typed

When was the last time you saw a swashbuckler swing by on a chandelier wearing half-plate?

Wearing leather armor is just as common for a duelist type. Easily. I could just as many pictures and artwork supporting that, if not more. Even wearing a breastplate. And again, dip Barbarian, if it's that important to go Unarmored. But again, additional options created by others certainly won't bother me. To each their own!
 

It probably seems like I'm being confrontational at this point but I promise I'm just curious. What about the fighter's features seems to heavily suggest using heavy armor? As far as I can tell, there aren't any features that actually have anything to do with the type of armor you're wearing. And the vast majority don't even imply you must be in melee. Am I missing something?
In which edition? In d20, the version I'm most familiar with, what most tends to force that is the iterative attacks. If you want to actually be successful as a fighter and deal significant amounts of damage, you can't move. If you can't move, you'll fall down very quickly without heavy armor.

I've tried many, many times to make lightly-armored fast moving "strikers" in d20, often utilizing combinations of barbarian and ranger and more to multiclass my way into effectiveness. I've played around with all kinds of rogue/fighter hybrids and swashbuckler/duelist classes.

All of them, compared to a heavily armored stationary fighter, end up with relatively low AC and relatively low damage output potential. The best I was able to get was a barbarian/ranger shifter with the reachrunner prestige class which gave me, essentially, the Pounce ability from the MM (it had a different name, and it was a class feature, but that's more or less what it was.) With that, I could be extremely mobile and yet still deal significant damage. Although after I hit, I was toast after taking a few hits back.

EDIT: The rogue from Trailblazer is also somewhat effective, but again, with its low hit dice and only situationally decent BAB, it's not really a contender for being effective in the archetype.
 
Last edited:

Unadvisedgoose

First Post
In which edition? In d20, the version I'm most familiar with, what most tends to force that is the iterative attacks. If you want to actually be successful as a fighter and deal significant amounts of damage, you can't move. If you can't move, you'll fall down very quickly without heavy armor.

I've tried many, many times to make lightly-armored fast moving "strikers" in d20, often utilizing combinations of barbarian and ranger and more to multiclass my way into effectiveness. I've played around with all kinds of rogue/fighter hybrids and swashbuckler/duelist classes.

All of them, compared to a heavily armored stationary fighter, end up with relatively low AC and relatively low damage output potential. The best I was able to get was a barbarian/ranger shifter with the reachrunner prestige class which gave me, essentially, the Pounce ability from the MM (it had a different name, and it was a class feature, but that's more or less what it was.) With that, I could be extremely mobile and yet still deal significant damage. Although after I hit, I was toast after taking a few hits back.

I can't speak for past editions because I'm not familiar with them. I learned in 4e, and I am only referring to 5e in this. Going Dex doesn't affect your damage output in the slightest bit as a fighter, aside from limiting your weapon choice, but that's everybody. Using rapiers is as good as any other one-handed weapon though. And yes, it just might affect your AC. But the difference is relatively negligible. A fighter in studded leather has one point less in AC than a fighter in plate, but they have no disadvantage in stealth, on top of being better suited to evade dragon's breath and fireballs and the like.
 

Well, I've never played 4e. If you've only played 4e, then we're talking past each other, since I don't know how it worked in 4e, and you don't know how it worked in any other edition.
 

Unadvisedgoose

First Post
Well, I've never played 4e. If you've only played 4e, then we're talking past each other, since I don't know how it worked in 4e, and you don't know how it worked in any other edition.

Right, I agree on that, but I thought the point of this conversation was whether it worked in this current edition, no? Which is what I was detailing in the previous post of mine.
 

monboesen

Explorer
I fail to see how this figher is not a credible swashbuckler

”Duelist”
Human Fighter 1
Str 12, dex 16, con 12, int 12, wis 8, cha 14
HP: 11, AC: 17 (std leather and shield), Move: 40 ft.
Class abilities: Second wind (1d10+1 hp/rest)
Skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Intimidate, Persuasion
Feats: Mobile (+10 move, no OA from movement from enemy you attacked, ignore difficult ground when dashing)
Rapier +5 (1d8+3)

Human Fighter 5 (Battle master)
Str 12, dex 18, con 12, int 12, wis 8, cha 14
HP: 39, AC: 18 (std leather and shield), Move: 40 ft.
Class abilities: Second wind (1d10+4 hp/rest), Dueling style, Action surge (extra action 1/rest) Maneuvers (Riposte, Disarm, Evasive footwork), Superiority dice (4d8)
Skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Intimidate, Persuasion
Feats: Mobile (+10 move, no OA from movement from enemy you attacked, ignore difficult ground when dashing), Defensive Duelist (reaction, +3 AC vs an attack that hits you)
Rapier +6/+6 (1d8+6)

Human Fighter 11 (Battle master)
Str 12, dex 20, con 12, int 12, wis 8, cha 14
HP: 81, AC: 19 (std leather and shield), Move: 40 ft.
Class abilities: Second wind (1d10+11 hp/rest), Dueling style, Action surge (extra action 1/rest) Maneuvers (Riposte, Disarm, Evasive footwork, Feinting attack, Lunging attack, Menacing attack, Rally), Superiority dice (5d10), Know Your Enemy, Indomitable (reroll save 1/long rest)
Skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Intimidate, Persuasion
Feats: Mobile (+10 move, no OA from movement from enemy you attacked, ignore difficult ground when dashing), Defensive Duelist (reaction, +4 AC vs an attack that hits you), Athlete (+1 Dexterity, stand up uses only 5ft of movement, climbing doesn’t halve your speed, make running jumps with only a 5 foot move), Resilient (+1 Dexterity, proficiency in Dexterity saves
Rapier +9/+9/+9 (1d8+7)
 

Unadvisedgoose

First Post
I fail to see how this figher is not a credible swashbuckler

”Duelist”
Human Fighter 1
Str 12, dex 16, con 12, int 12, wis 8, cha 14
HP: 11, AC: 17 (std leather and shield), Move: 40 ft.
Class abilities: Second wind (1d10+1 hp/rest)
Skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Intimidate, Persuasion
Feats: Mobile (+10 move, no OA from movement from enemy you attacked, ignore difficult ground when dashing)
Rapier +5 (1d8+3)

Human Fighter 5 (Battle master)
Str 12, dex 18, con 12, int 12, wis 8, cha 14
HP: 39, AC: 18 (std leather and shield), Move: 40 ft.
Class abilities: Second wind (1d10+4 hp/rest), Dueling style, Action surge (extra action 1/rest) Maneuvers (Riposte, Disarm, Evasive footwork), Superiority dice (4d8)
Skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Intimidate, Persuasion
Feats: Mobile (+10 move, no OA from movement from enemy you attacked, ignore difficult ground when dashing), Defensive Duelist (reaction, +3 AC vs an attack that hits you)
Rapier +6/+6 (1d8+6)

Human Fighter 11 (Battle master)
Str 12, dex 20, con 12, int 12, wis 8, cha 14
HP: 81, AC: 19 (std leather and shield), Move: 40 ft.
Class abilities: Second wind (1d10+11 hp/rest), Dueling style, Action surge (extra action 1/rest) Maneuvers (Riposte, Disarm, Evasive footwork, Feinting attack, Lunging attack, Menacing attack, Rally), Superiority dice (5d10), Know Your Enemy, Indomitable (reroll save 1/long rest)
Skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Intimidate, Persuasion
Feats: Mobile (+10 move, no OA from movement from enemy you attacked, ignore difficult ground when dashing), Defensive Duelist (reaction, +4 AC vs an attack that hits you), Athlete (+1 Dexterity, stand up uses only 5ft of movement, climbing doesn’t halve your speed, make running jumps with only a 5 foot move), Resilient (+1 Dexterity, proficiency in Dexterity saves
Rapier +9/+9/+9 (1d8+7)

While I obviously agree with your point, it's not possible to have two feats at level 5 while also bumping your DEX up to 18. But yes, this does illustrate that, in 5e, a swashbuckler/duelist type is very achievable. That doesn't mean those that want more specific features are "wrong", by any means. I would just like to point out how flexible the classes are and how I think that is a great thing in this particular edition.
 

Khaalis

Adventurer
Looking at it this way though, any "additional" subclasses or archetypes would also be considered optional, probably even more so than feats and maybe even multi classing... So while I'm not trying to pick a fight I'm a little confused by how creating more subclasses would alleviate the problem of certain existing options being as optional as they are.
For the simple reason that I have seen many times over the years that Multiclassing gets banned far more often than when someone is presented with a well done "alternate" (class, subclass, etc.). Multiclassing for many seems to have a stigma of "cherry picking" and "power gaming" thus that the only reason one multiclasses is to cheese a character.

Additionally, a lot of people don't like to have to finagle a character with fiddling with MC to make a concept work. For instance someone who wants to play a Fisticuffs Heavy Armored Fighter archetype may not be happy with having to try and mash fighter and monk together when it is much simpler to simply gear a subclass to that role.

On the subclass topic, WotC already opened the door and showed us the way to the MC concept prebuilt into a class's sublasses with things like Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Way of the Four Elements, etc. It could even be argued that they encourage the idea of making archetypes and themes that seem to require Multiclassing into solid subclasses where possible, rather than resorting to forcing multiclassing.

Now on a personal note, I have always Loved multiclassing and have no issue with it. Unfortunately I have seen far too many times when people come looking for advice on how to make "X theme" and they are told multiclass A & B, to walk away disapointed because their DM or game table doesn't allow it.

However, while I may personally like multiclassing, now in 5E where the designers have opened the door the MC-esque Subclass concept, I will more than happily embrace that model. I also still feel that there are still some concepts that still require their own class to "truly" realize the concept, where multiclassing may only "passably" (if you look at it in the right light) realize a concept.

JMHO (though I know I'm not alone). YMMV.
 

Khaalis

Adventurer
Wearing leather armor is just as common for a duelist type. Easily. I could just as many pictures and artwork supporting that, if not more. Even wearing a breastplate. And again, dip Barbarian, if it's that important to go Unarmored. But again, additional options created by others certainly won't bother me. To each their own!

FYI, this is exactly what I mean about being forced into MC to "sorta" make a concept work. In what way does being a Barbarian really apply to being a Duelist/Swashbuckler other than for the mechanics of cherry picking the class to get Unarmored Defense. If the ability is THAT intrinsic to the concept (and yes it really is as described by others), then there should be an option that creates the theme without multiclassing into unrelated classes.

As it has been said, the Fighter class is "almost" right for the concept but not quite. It needs tweaked, either a substitute "alternate" class feature for the core fighter to make a Light Fighter, or a specific subclass or even a full on ALT-Fighter. I still haven't decided which is the best approach.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top