first, off I know it is simple enough to say you have that fighting style for the college and move on but I think it would be better to have it be on paper or digital document. the thrown weapon fighting style fits perfectly with the bard in general not only the college itself. I think it would be good to extend the fighting style options for the college of swords options like thrown weapon style and superior technique in particular. what are your thoughts
Fighting styles that compliment ranged attacks would work well with the sword bard. All the “blade flourish” options actually work with ranged weapons and thrown weapons.
blade flourish options requires attacks to be made with a weapon, but doesn’t differentiate between weapon types.
you get the 10ft movement speed boost just for taking the attack action, even without a weapon.
It has never sat right to me that different classes with the Fighting Style feature have different venn diagrams of styles available. But, it is what it is I suppose, absent a houserule otherwise.
I think when looking at the longevity of the edition, you need to be careful not to make subclasses too generic. It's not College of Weapons. College of Swords is supposed to be a dashing swordsman. This way there is design space left open for a future subclass that might specialize in ranged weapons or thrown weapons or blowguns or whatever.
I think when looking at the longevity of the edition, you need to be careful not to make subclasses too generic. It's not College of Weapons. College of Swords is supposed to be a dashing swordsman. This way there is design space left open for a future subclass that might specialize in ranged weapons or thrown weapons or blowguns or whatever.
And that one can choose between archery or thrown weapon. I like it.
There will never ACTUALLY be such a subclass released though.
I don’t like when 5E writes classes with an overly-specific theme, because role playing and creativity is the purview of players. Classes and features should feel mechanically distinct rather than generic, but thematically? Leave that to race, background, feats, multiclassing, role play, etc etc
I don’t like when 5E writes classes with an overly-specific theme, because role playing and creativity is the purview of players. Classes and features should feel mechanically distinct rather than generic, but thematically? Leave that to race, background, feats, multiclassing, role play, etc etc
There aren't that many (sub)classes that are overly specific with there theme, and sword bard is not even one of them (it is a weapon-dancer theme. That isn't that restrictive). And all (sub)classes need some kind of theme to give design direction.
There will never ACTUALLY be such a subclass released though.
I don’t like when 5E writes classes with an overly-specific theme, because role playing and creativity is the purview of players. Classes and features should feel mechanically distinct rather than generic, but thematically? Leave that to race, background, feats, multiclassing, role play, etc etc
Are you arguing that subclasses should not be thematic? I think that ship has sailed, my friend.
There aren't that many (sub)classes that are overly specific with there theme, and sword bard is not even one of them (it is a weapon-dancer theme. That isn't that restrictive). And all (sub)classes need some kind of theme to give design direction.
There's actually a great deal that I feel are written with overly-specific limitations, which seem to be in the service to the single archetypical character that the authors had in mind when writing the class. When players try to grab those class mechanics for their own multiclass or non-typical character, they might run into hiccups like:
Bladesinger attempts to limit itself to elven characters. In 5E, there's generally no restriction on race/class combos that don't fit into cultural expectations, so it's hard to see what about the Bladesinger multiclass specifically warranted a warning that it was For Elves Only.
Battlerager attempts to limits itself to dwarven characters, see above.
Barbarians limit themselves not only to Strength attacks (kind of fine), but also to melee strength attacks (way too specific and restrictive). "Barbarian that throws axes" is hardly an 'out there' concept that deviates from a barbarian's core function, and yet, ranged play is wholly incompatible with the tiny box the class was written into.
Monks (for a long time) limited themselves to melee simple weapons, not all simple weapons (so darts/shurikens weren't monk weapons). Yes, there was a subclass (Kensei) that bypassed this... but it shouldn't take an entire subclass (which is weirdly focused on mastering a LOT of different weapons???) to patch "I want my ninja to throw shurikens"
Hexblades limit themselves to one-handed weapons. Pact of the Blade limit themselves to melee weapons. Except neither really do, its just complicated over-specific bookkeeping until you find a magic weapon or take an invocation, pain in the butt red tape for Tier 1 warlocks.
Paladins require Strength to multiclass, despite having no class features that interact with strength or heavy armor in any way. Want to build a Holy Musketeer, who favors rapiers and hand crossbows? Well, you've got an uphill battle to climb if a couple or rogue or bard levels are a part of that vision, because even though that seems pretty squarely like paladin, you're going to need to bulk up some unnecessary strength to pull it off because the author was thinking of heavy plate wearing knights when the class was designed.
It's fine that these limitations line up with some archetypes... but the play options they close off aren't really mechanical advantages, they're just alternative character concepts. I don't think classes should be written in a way that closes off player creativity to challenge norms.
Are you arguing that subclasses should not be thematic? I think that ship has sailed, my friend.
I guess to put it a different way... classes/subclasses should be "thematic" by way of what new thing they let you do, not by what they CAN'T do/weapons they CAN'T use/races that CAN'T be them. They're kind of two sides of the same coin, it can be a subtle distinction, but the classes that were written from one perspective or the other feel different to me.
There will never ACTUALLY be such a subclass released though.
I don’t like when 5E writes classes with an overly-specific theme, because role playing and creativity is the purview of players. Classes and features should feel mechanically distinct rather than generic, but thematically? Leave that to race, background, feats, multiclassing, role play, etc etc
Unless some how you are capable of seeing the future or have complete control of what WotC publishes, you can't say never on this topic.
Okay, there SHOULDN'T be a subclass released that is just "College of Blades, but with different fighting styles." Better? There's only so much room in so many sourcebooks for new subclasses, and each new release should do something new, not just patch an artificial constraint on an existing subclass hat didn't need to be there.
Yeah, I was about to bring up Valor Bards vs Swords Bards - we already have some pretty severe subclass collisions. Another big one is how Redemption Paladins have the same aura but better (since it's literally the same but bigger) as Crown Paladins. And it's all pretty unnecessary - I 100% agree with Chicken_Champ that better design could avoid these problems before they happen. It leads to cascading issues, too, like how the poor design of four elements monks means they can't pick up new spells as new spells come out in sourcebooks, no matter how appropriate (like shape water).
Bladesinger and battle rager were limited by lore reasons and they errata'd bladesinger to not have that limitation.
Base barbarians only have 1 feature that cares about melee attacks, and it barely effects anything and makes sense for balance reasons (probably).
Darts not being monk weapons is dumb, but I could see not wanting (cross)bows to be monk weapons without subclass, and I guess they just kept it simple. This is actually a problem because it is anathema to the class.
And I think late into development they realized that almost no classes required (or even wanted) STR, so they added it to paladins because heavy armor theme. It makes some sense and is exactly as limiting as it was intended to be for game balance.
Barbarians can’t add rage damage to thrown axes, and can’t throw axes recklessly. That’s a pretty big chunk of Barbarian kit that was locked to melee for (in my opinion) no particular reason.
If Heavy Armor is a theme for Paladins, there should be at least one armor-related feature in the class that communicates that in an empowering way. There is not. The Strength requirement on Paladins is one of the plainest examples of trying to communicate theme via barriers to entry rather than via positive abilities, and it sucks.
Barbarians can’t add rage damage to thrown axes, and can’t throw axes recklessly. That’s a pretty big chunk of Barbarian kit that was locked to melee for (in my opinion) no particular reason.
If Heavy Armor is a theme for Paladins, there should be at least one armor-related feature in the class that communicates that in an empowering way. There is not. The Strength requirement on Paladins is one of the plainest examples of trying to communicate theme via barriers to entry rather than via positive abilities, and it sucks.
Oh, I missed that reckless attack was also melee. That does kind of suck.
And I already said the heavy armor thing was a shallow connection and it was more for balancing. Plus calling out multiclassing rules as limited theme really isn't the most effective argument (given that it is and optional option that pure paladins never have to think about).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
first, off I know it is simple enough to say you have that fighting style for the college and move on but I think it would be better to have it be on paper or digital document. the thrown weapon fighting style fits perfectly with the bard in general not only the college itself. I think it would be good to extend the fighting style options for the college of swords options like thrown weapon style and superior technique in particular. what are your thoughts
I think the theme of college of swords is 1-handed swords. So dueling and TWF are still pretty much the only ones that make sense.
You van of course homebrew this.
Fighting styles that compliment ranged attacks would work well with the sword bard. All the “blade flourish” options actually work with ranged weapons and thrown weapons.
blade flourish options requires attacks to be made with a weapon, but doesn’t differentiate between weapon types.
you get the 10ft movement speed boost just for taking the attack action, even without a weapon.
A collage of swords, sounds like an art student got themselves a job at a smithy to pay for college lol
It has never sat right to me that different classes with the Fighting Style feature have different venn diagrams of styles available. But, it is what it is I suppose, absent a houserule otherwise.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think when looking at the longevity of the edition, you need to be careful not to make subclasses too generic. It's not College of Weapons. College of Swords is supposed to be a dashing swordsman. This way there is design space left open for a future subclass that might specialize in ranged weapons or thrown weapons or blowguns or whatever.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
And that one can choose between archery or thrown weapon. I like it.
There will never ACTUALLY be such a subclass released though.
I don’t like when 5E writes classes with an overly-specific theme, because role playing and creativity is the purview of players. Classes and features should feel mechanically distinct rather than generic, but thematically? Leave that to race, background, feats, multiclassing, role play, etc etc
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There aren't that many (sub)classes that are overly specific with there theme, and sword bard is not even one of them (it is a weapon-dancer theme. That isn't that restrictive). And all (sub)classes need some kind of theme to give design direction.
Are you arguing that subclasses should not be thematic? I think that ship has sailed, my friend.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
There's actually a great deal that I feel are written with overly-specific limitations, which seem to be in the service to the single archetypical character that the authors had in mind when writing the class. When players try to grab those class mechanics for their own multiclass or non-typical character, they might run into hiccups like:
It's fine that these limitations line up with some archetypes... but the play options they close off aren't really mechanical advantages, they're just alternative character concepts. I don't think classes should be written in a way that closes off player creativity to challenge norms.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I guess to put it a different way... classes/subclasses should be "thematic" by way of what new thing they let you do, not by what they CAN'T do/weapons they CAN'T use/races that CAN'T be them. They're kind of two sides of the same coin, it can be a subtle distinction, but the classes that were written from one perspective or the other feel different to me.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Unless some how you are capable of seeing the future or have complete control of what WotC publishes, you can't say never on this topic.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Okay, there SHOULDN'T be a subclass released that is just "College of Blades, but with different fighting styles." Better? There's only so much room in so many sourcebooks for new subclasses, and each new release should do something new, not just patch an artificial constraint on an existing subclass hat didn't need to be there.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Honestly, I think that Valor is a good option for making a ranged weapon bard while Swords is thematically better for swords.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah, I was about to bring up Valor Bards vs Swords Bards - we already have some pretty severe subclass collisions. Another big one is how Redemption Paladins have the same aura but better (since it's literally the same but bigger) as Crown Paladins. And it's all pretty unnecessary - I 100% agree with Chicken_Champ that better design could avoid these problems before they happen. It leads to cascading issues, too, like how the poor design of four elements monks means they can't pick up new spells as new spells come out in sourcebooks, no matter how appropriate (like shape water).
Bladesinger and battle rager were limited by lore reasons and they errata'd bladesinger to not have that limitation.
Base barbarians only have 1 feature that cares about melee attacks, and it barely effects anything and makes sense for balance reasons (probably).
Darts not being monk weapons is dumb, but I could see not wanting (cross)bows to be monk weapons without subclass, and I guess they just kept it simple. This is actually a problem because it is anathema to the class.
And I think late into development they realized that almost no classes required (or even wanted) STR, so they added it to paladins because heavy armor theme. It makes some sense and is exactly as limiting as it was intended to be for game balance.
Barbarians can’t add rage damage to thrown axes, and can’t throw axes recklessly. That’s a pretty big chunk of Barbarian kit that was locked to melee for (in my opinion) no particular reason.
If Heavy Armor is a theme for Paladins, there should be at least one armor-related feature in the class that communicates that in an empowering way. There is not. The Strength requirement on Paladins is one of the plainest examples of trying to communicate theme via barriers to entry rather than via positive abilities, and it sucks.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's pretty telling that Fighters can multiclass with Dex or Str, but Paladins can't. Feels like shabby design.
And the ranger can't multiclass with STR. The thing about the ranger and paladin is that they aren't as versatile with combat training as fighters.
Oh, I missed that reckless attack was also melee. That does kind of suck.
And I already said the heavy armor thing was a shallow connection and it was more for balancing. Plus calling out multiclassing rules as limited theme really isn't the most effective argument (given that it is and optional option that pure paladins never have to think about).