Because the Arcane Archer needs fixes I believe Cavalier or Rune Knight will likely be the 4th. I also think the Arcane Archer should lose the Archer part and just be an Arcane Warrior. Able to use those “shots” (renamed) on any weapon. Curving Arrows would have to become Curving Attack and would be better for ranged combat, but the main thing about fighter is it can pick up any weapon and be effective, but Arcane Archer suddenly focuses on just short and longbow and that’s silly.
I also think the Arcane Archer should lose the Archer part and just be an Arcane Warrior. Able to use those “shots” (renamed) on any weapon. Curving Arrows would have to become Curving Attack and would be better for ranged combat, but the main thing about fighter is it can pick up any weapon and be effective, but Arcane Archer suddenly focuses on just short and longbow and that’s silly.
At that point it would end up overlapping too much with battle master, eldritch knight, or even the paladin's smites. Though I would definitely support broadening arcane archer to other ranged weapons. Being stuck exclusively with two weapon choices is a bit restrictive.
I also think the Arcane Archer should lose the Archer part and just be an Arcane Warrior. Able to use those “shots” (renamed) on any weapon. Curving Arrows would have to become Curving Attack and would be better for ranged combat, but the main thing about fighter is it can pick up any weapon and be effective, but Arcane Archer suddenly focuses on just short and longbow and that’s silly.
At that point it would end up overlapping too much with battle master, eldritch knight, or even the paladin's smites. Though I would definitely support broadening arcane archer to other ranged weapons. Being stuck exclusively with two weapon choices is a bit restrictive.
Granted you need Crossbow Expert to make them worth using on a Fighter (or anyone with Extra Attack), so there is the question of just how many builds would want them in the first place (though being a half feat might mitigate that).
Honestly, I'm split on whether the fact that there's little to no practical difference between crossbows and regular bows means the restriction is pointless or it's a way to give the class a little bit of flavor that doesn't actually affect performance. Though I suppose there is a bit more variance in performance with Weapon Masteries; don't know how much that moves the needle for people.
I'd somewhat like to see a warlord/marshal class (leadership and martial support) -- say, take the purple dragon knight and make it more generic and less lousy.
Champion is your simple beginner friendly fighter, Battle Master is more complex fighter, Eldritch Knight lets you play around with spell casting and Cavalier would let you play as more video game like tank.
The whole idea of a beginner friendly class or subclass sounds ridiculous to me. Beginner is first three levels. After that the player is no longer a beginner.
I'd somewhat like to see a warlord/marshal class (leadership and martial support) -- say, take the purple dragon knight and make it more generic and less lousy.
I'd totally dig that. Though it could be more modest with the naming, like Commander or Officer. A 1st level Marshal sounds a bit pretentious)
I'd somewhat like to see a warlord/marshal class (leadership and martial support) -- say, take the purple dragon knight and make it more generic and less lousy.
I do miss the 4e warlord, particularly the lazylord. I ran one as a dreaded DMPC in a 4e campaign, and my party loved her. I pretty much healed on her and made other people attack, so she never hogged the spotlight. The problem is, in 5e, not all basic attacks are equal, and enabling a rogue for example to essentially make another sneak attack every round could prove problematic from a balance perspective.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Champion is your simple beginner friendly fighter, Battle Master is more complex fighter, Eldritch Knight lets you play around with spell casting and Cavalier would let you play as more video game like tank.
The whole idea of a beginner friendly class or subclass sounds ridiculous to me. Beginner is first three levels. After that the player is no longer a beginner.
Except a lot of campaigns don't start at level 1, and it's at 3-5 where things start getting more complex as subclass features come online and other options start to bloom out.
Except a lot of campaigns don't start at level 1, and it's at 3-5 where things start getting more complex as subclass features come online and other options start to bloom out.
What's the point of even having the first levels then, if not to introduce people to mechanics of the game and classes they chose. It's like saying "I started university straight from 4th year and I think they should make things simpler, I don't understand anything". How about starting from the beginning, as absurd as it may sound?
Except a lot of campaigns don't start at level 1, and it's at 3-5 where things start getting more complex as subclass features come online and other options start to bloom out.
Beginner campaigns are rather likely to start at 1. However, it's not like a battle master is actually particularly hard to run; you might not get the most of its potential, but even if you take the dubious options you'll be a quite capable character.
Honestly, I don't have a conceptual problem with the Champion, I just want it to actually be a decent option. It wouldn't take a lot -- say, make remarkable athlete increase speed, or let you ignore difficult terrain, or dash as a bonus action.
I also think the Arcane Archer should lose the Archer part and just be an Arcane Warrior. Able to use those “shots” (renamed) on any weapon. Curving Arrows would have to become Curving Attack and would be better for ranged combat, but the main thing about fighter is it can pick up any weapon and be effective, but Arcane Archer suddenly focuses on just short and longbow and that’s silly.
At that point it would end up overlapping too much with battle master, eldritch knight, or even the paladin's smites. Though I would definitely support broadening arcane archer to other ranged weapons. Being stuck exclusively with two weapon choices is a bit restrictive.
If Arcane Archer is going to force you to use only ranged weapons then I would rather it not be included in the phb. It can come back in a supplement book. It fails to achieve the flexibility of every other fighter. Literally every other fighter can be built Str or Dex focused and gain something from the majority of the subclass features. Also if allowing the “shots” to work with all weapons including melee weapons overlaps with Battlemaster then the Arcane Archer is obsolete, because Battle Master can already use its Maneuvers with Bows. It’s actually a really good ranged fighter build. Honestly my second favorite after Elven Samurai Archer with elven accuracy. Battle Master Archer has more “shots” than Arcane archer and obviously Battle Master can be used for other builds. Arcane Archer shouldn’t be included in the next PHB as an Archer subclass. It’s definitely a supplement subclass without major reworks.
Champion is your simple beginner friendly fighter, Battle Master is more complex fighter, Eldritch Knight lets you play around with spell casting and Cavalier would let you play as more video game like tank.
The whole idea of a beginner friendly class or subclass sounds ridiculous to me. Beginner is first three levels. After that the player is no longer a beginner.
But classes do have differing levels of complexity, even at those first three levels. So some being easier/more straightforward than others is inevitable. Trying to ignore that won't help, while acknowledging it will.
But classes do have differing levels of complexity, even at those first three levels. So some being easier/more straightforward than others is inevitable. Trying to ignore that won't help, while acknowledging it will.
Yeah, but what I'm talking about is purposely simplifying the entire class to be "beginner friendly". And you end up with a class that can't do anything, just attack action in almost every situation, like an activist on Reddit. Maybe it's just my bias, but players need to gain some options even if they're not gonna use them. Cunning Strikes are done perfectly - you may forgo that feature and apply the strongest sneak attack. Or you can go tactical by sacrificing some damage if you're feeling tactical. There is an option for players past beginner level, for those who learned the basic rules and want more.
Champion is your simple beginner friendly fighter, Battle Master is more complex fighter, Eldritch Knight lets you play around with spell casting and Cavalier would let you play as more video game like tank.
The whole idea of a beginner friendly class or subclass sounds ridiculous to me. Beginner is first three levels. After that the player is no longer a beginner.
Well, they’re a beginner at level 4 and up characters still. The way the game plays shifts as you level up, and beginners don’t really get that. I’m in a group now with some new players. The DM and I were telling them about the big power bump at level 5, but then it happens, and they’re like Fireball is how big? And does how many dice? I can fly now? I attack a second time? Not that it was confusing, but more just they hadn’t known what to expect. I bet a few of them are looking at the feat choices they made at 4 and having some buyer’s remorse. It takes a bit before you understand the idea of not having too many things competing for your bonus action, or not taking too many concentration spells. So having simpler baseline mechanics helps as the natural complexity of the game layers on.
Except a lot of campaigns don't start at level 1, and it's at 3-5 where things start getting more complex as subclass features come online and other options start to bloom out.
What's the point of even having the first levels then, if not to introduce people to mechanics of the game and classes they chose. It's like saying "I started university straight from 4th year and I think they should make things simpler, I don't understand anything". How about starting from the beginning, as absurd as it may sound?
Not all universities and not all subjects are created equal.
But classes do have differing levels of complexity, even at those first three levels. So some being easier/more straightforward than others is inevitable. Trying to ignore that won't help, while acknowledging it will.
Yeah, but what I'm talking about is purposely simplifying the entire class to be "beginner friendly". And you end up with a class that can't do anything, just attack action in almost every situation, like an activist on Reddit. Maybe it's just my bias, but players need to gain some options even if they're not gonna use them. Cunning Strikes are done perfectly - you may forgo that feature and apply the strongest sneak attack. Or you can go tactical by sacrificing some damage if you're feeling tactical. There is an option for players past beginner level, for those who learned the basic rules and want more.
fighter in onednd has base options. They have many choices of mastery other classes don't, they have the new second wind, tactical mind, and tactical shift.
Beginner is the wrong term for what they want from Champion. The goal is to have a simple straightforward sub class/option. That could be for beginners, or even for more experienced players who prefer less book keeping and fiddly bits. I dislike many apple products/software because they eliminate options and features in favor of simplicity and streamlining, but thats exactly what some users are looking for.
its ok to have options that are less complex, I don't know if they should focus those options on martials though.
If we want to guess which subclass will be the 4th, we would have to try to follow the weird logic of JC and the pairs of "opposites". I understand that a couple is the champion and the battlemaster. Then the other could perfectly be the Eldritch Knight and the Arcane Archer. One goes in melee, and the other with ranged weapons. And both have to do with magic.
I have little doubt that it will be the Arcane Archer, really.
If we want to guess which subclass will be the 4th, we would have to try to follow the weird logic of JC and the pairs of "opposites". I understand that a couple is the champion and the battlemaster. Then the other could perfectly be the Eldritch Knight and the Arcane Archer. One goes in melee, and the other with ranged weapons. And both have to do with magic.
I have little doubt that it will be the Arcane Archer, really.
What makes Eldritch Knight melee? You can use all of its features at range or melee.
arcane archer isn't going into the PHB without a playtest or two to address its, uh, low popularity issues. so, not that.
given the list of subclasses, rune knight isn't as "oppositey" as samurai, psi warrior, cavalier, or banneret. and I've never seen a banneret or cavalier at a table which makes me personally wonder if they have their own playtest needs.
which leaves psi warrior (mind power vs the arcane) or samurai (mundane vs magic). if they have any plans to make a future psionics / mindflayers book then they won't take psi warrior now to avoid a double-dip.
that leaves the fairly popular samurai. bonus points for being good with a sword or a bow (or a calligraphy brush).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Because the Arcane Archer needs fixes I believe Cavalier or Rune Knight will likely be the 4th.
Cavalier also kind of needs some work. It's DEFINETLY in a better place than AA, but it still has some jank. Like the fact that they need both Strength and Con to use their features.
It also seems like popularity is a factor in what subclasses are added and I don't know if Cavalier is popular enough that it'd be added. But maybe I'm off base on this point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because the Arcane Archer needs fixes I believe Cavalier or Rune Knight will likely be the 4th. I also think the Arcane Archer should lose the Archer part and just be an Arcane Warrior. Able to use those “shots” (renamed) on any weapon. Curving Arrows would have to become Curving Attack and would be better for ranged combat, but the main thing about fighter is it can pick up any weapon and be effective, but Arcane Archer suddenly focuses on just short and longbow and that’s silly.
At that point it would end up overlapping too much with battle master, eldritch knight, or even the paladin's smites. Though I would definitely support broadening arcane archer to other ranged weapons. Being stuck exclusively with two weapon choices is a bit restrictive.
Granted you need Crossbow Expert to make them worth using on a Fighter (or anyone with Extra Attack), so there is the question of just how many builds would want them in the first place (though being a half feat might mitigate that).
Honestly, I'm split on whether the fact that there's little to no practical difference between crossbows and regular bows means the restriction is pointless or it's a way to give the class a little bit of flavor that doesn't actually affect performance. Though I suppose there is a bit more variance in performance with Weapon Masteries; don't know how much that moves the needle for people.
I'd somewhat like to see a warlord/marshal class (leadership and martial support) -- say, take the purple dragon knight and make it more generic and less lousy.
The whole idea of a beginner friendly class or subclass sounds ridiculous to me. Beginner is first three levels. After that the player is no longer a beginner.
I'd totally dig that. Though it could be more modest with the naming, like Commander or Officer. A 1st level Marshal sounds a bit pretentious)
I do miss the 4e warlord, particularly the lazylord. I ran one as a dreaded DMPC in a 4e campaign, and my party loved her. I pretty much healed on her and made other people attack, so she never hogged the spotlight. The problem is, in 5e, not all basic attacks are equal, and enabling a rogue for example to essentially make another sneak attack every round could prove problematic from a balance perspective.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Except a lot of campaigns don't start at level 1, and it's at 3-5 where things start getting more complex as subclass features come online and other options start to bloom out.
What's the point of even having the first levels then, if not to introduce people to mechanics of the game and classes they chose. It's like saying "I started university straight from 4th year and I think they should make things simpler, I don't understand anything". How about starting from the beginning, as absurd as it may sound?
Beginner campaigns are rather likely to start at 1. However, it's not like a battle master is actually particularly hard to run; you might not get the most of its potential, but even if you take the dubious options you'll be a quite capable character.
Honestly, I don't have a conceptual problem with the Champion, I just want it to actually be a decent option. It wouldn't take a lot -- say, make remarkable athlete increase speed, or let you ignore difficult terrain, or dash as a bonus action.
If Arcane Archer is going to force you to use only ranged weapons then I would rather it not be included in the phb. It can come back in a supplement book. It fails to achieve the flexibility of every other fighter. Literally every other fighter can be built Str or Dex focused and gain something from the majority of the subclass features.
Also if allowing the “shots” to work with all weapons including melee weapons overlaps with Battlemaster then the Arcane Archer is obsolete, because Battle Master can already use its Maneuvers with Bows. It’s actually a really good ranged fighter build. Honestly my second favorite after Elven Samurai Archer with elven accuracy. Battle Master Archer has more “shots” than Arcane archer and obviously Battle Master can be used for other builds. Arcane Archer shouldn’t be included in the next PHB as an Archer subclass. It’s definitely a supplement subclass without major reworks.
But classes do have differing levels of complexity, even at those first three levels. So some being easier/more straightforward than others is inevitable. Trying to ignore that won't help, while acknowledging it will.
Yeah, but what I'm talking about is purposely simplifying the entire class to be "beginner friendly". And you end up with a class that can't do anything, just attack action in almost every situation, like an activist on Reddit. Maybe it's just my bias, but players need to gain some options even if they're not gonna use them. Cunning Strikes are done perfectly - you may forgo that feature and apply the strongest sneak attack. Or you can go tactical by sacrificing some damage if you're feeling tactical. There is an option for players past beginner level, for those who learned the basic rules and want more.
Well, they’re a beginner at level 4 and up characters still. The way the game plays shifts as you level up, and beginners don’t really get that.
I’m in a group now with some new players. The DM and I were telling them about the big power bump at level 5, but then it happens, and they’re like Fireball is how big? And does how many dice? I can fly now? I attack a second time? Not that it was confusing, but more just they hadn’t known what to expect. I bet a few of them are looking at the feat choices they made at 4 and having some buyer’s remorse. It takes a bit before you understand the idea of not having too many things competing for your bonus action, or not taking too many concentration spells.
So having simpler baseline mechanics helps as the natural complexity of the game layers on.
Not all universities and not all subjects are created equal.
fighter in onednd has base options. They have many choices of mastery other classes don't, they have the new second wind, tactical mind, and tactical shift.
Beginner is the wrong term for what they want from Champion. The goal is to have a simple straightforward sub class/option. That could be for beginners, or even for more experienced players who prefer less book keeping and fiddly bits. I dislike many apple products/software because they eliminate options and features in favor of simplicity and streamlining, but thats exactly what some users are looking for.
its ok to have options that are less complex, I don't know if they should focus those options on martials though.
If we want to guess which subclass will be the 4th, we would have to try to follow the weird logic of JC and the pairs of "opposites". I understand that a couple is the champion and the battlemaster. Then the other could perfectly be the Eldritch Knight and the Arcane Archer. One goes in melee, and the other with ranged weapons. And both have to do with magic.
I have little doubt that it will be the Arcane Archer, really.
What makes Eldritch Knight melee? You can use all of its features at range or melee.
arcane archer isn't going into the PHB without a playtest or two to address its, uh, low popularity issues. so, not that.
given the list of subclasses, rune knight isn't as "oppositey" as samurai, psi warrior, cavalier, or banneret. and I've never seen a banneret or cavalier at a table which makes me personally wonder if they have their own playtest needs.
which leaves psi warrior (mind power vs the arcane) or samurai (mundane vs magic). if they have any plans to make a future psionics / mindflayers book then they won't take psi warrior now to avoid a double-dip.
that leaves the fairly popular samurai. bonus points for being good with a sword or a bow (or a calligraphy brush).
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Cavalier also kind of needs some work. It's DEFINETLY in a better place than AA, but it still has some jank. Like the fact that they need both Strength and Con to use their features.
It also seems like popularity is a factor in what subclasses are added and I don't know if Cavalier is popular enough that it'd be added. But maybe I'm off base on this point.