Subclasses to the Fighter's rescue?

A lot of people have ideas about what they would like the fighter to do or have and be able to perform across the 3 different areas of play. Can Subclasses help with this and what subclasses and abiities can go together to achieve various ends? Lets throw some ideas together to see what subclasses can accomplish for fighters and see if they can be used to give the class what people have been looking for.

 

Idea:

Sapper/Engineer - Potential for trap removal/detection, obstacle removal and maybe secret doors and locks. Trapmaking maybe and siege skills/abilities/knowledge.

 

Strategist- Potential for situational buffing and debuffing

 

Quatermaster- Potential for item gaining and improvent.

 

More to come.

 

I think I may look for my 2E Fighters handbook and see if the kits have anything to offer. Now where did I leave it?

Now That I have foud it Here is a list of 2E Fighter Kits:

Amazon; (I wonder what the male equivelent would be?)

Barbarian

Beast Rider

Beserker

Cavalier

Gladiator

Myrmidon

Noble Warrior

Peasant Hero

Pirate/outlaw

Samurai

Savage

Swashbuckler

Wilderness Warrior

 

Now some of these are other classes or backgrounds but may see some use. Also another thing I noticed was a it of Go Team Wild.

Amazon: From all the depictions other than DC's Wonderwoman I have seen them as Overly proud but well disciplined warrioresses usually highly skilled with Spear, sword and bow. I really dont like the Idea of gender based mechanics but the woman only society seems to be their main schtik anything beyond that would be campaign specific. Judgement: This is when all said and done with campaign specific exceptions a background which at best could grant weapon and armour proficiencies.

 

Barbarian: Whilst their is a class for this, there is room for a non raging tribal combatant that uses skill and tactic. Subclass: Tribal warrior Lose medium and heavy armours gain some extra skill prof. 1d12 hp and 1 or 2 HD and maybe some sort of warcry or work with others bonus. 

 

Beast Rider: Any class can do this and adds no real benifit other than the obvious as well as the mount rules are no where near developed enough to look into this yet.

 

Beserker: We have Barbarian for this.

 

Cavalier: Same issues as Beast rider.

 

Gladiator: Warriors that are lightly armoured and have weird weapon combos. They are also trained to put on a good show, play to the audiance. Weird weapon combos and the styles thesed create + showmanship there is potential in this for a subclass.

 

Myrmidon: A real mouthful to use when all you trying to say that the character is a trained professional and veteran soldier. Certainly potential for background but there is also some limited subclass potential with some sort of been there done that sort of mechanic or learned a few tricks during my service.

 

Noble Warrior: Yes Noble is a background but Nobles were fed better thus healthier and strong, got good instructors, good equipment and had legal authority. These are possible directions for a subclass not to mention that many elite units in history were made up of young nobles looking to make a name for themselves and questing in some martially driven families was necessary before taking up position or as passage to adulthood.

 

Peasant Hero: Same as Noble at base is a background but with some work has some potential for subclass, more in an inspiring direction and maybe a bit of toughness that only being dirt poor can provide.

 

 

 

What about an archer subclass? It seems to me that everyone treats the fighter as a melee-only class (again), though he's also able to choose the Archery fighting style and has good premises in form of his extra attacks and Action Surge, but has no subclass to extend these. Admitted, the Warrior subclass does work on it, but doesn't hand out specific ranged fighting goods and the Archery Mastery feat is imho a bit meager to back it up completely.

When was the last time a fighter made a great archer? 2nd ed? 3rd ed was ok but feat intensive. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I would do beast rider as a barbarian subclass in all likelihood.

 

 

I suspect fighters will be: warrior, weaponmaster, knight, warlord/marshal, and defender/protector/guardian.  I would add archery abilities as a branch of options in weaponmaster.

3rd edition archery fighter may have been feat intensive, but feasible. Some melee builds like two-weapon fighting have been feat (and ability) intensive, too. However in 4E archery fighter was completely impracticable. Still, that does not change anything about my argument.

the_move wrote:

3rd edition archery fighter may have been feat intensive, but feasible. Some melee builds like two-weapon fighting have been feat (and ability) intensive, too. However in 4E archery fighter was completely impracticable. Still, that does not change anything about my argument.

 

 True the best archers I saw in 3rd ed though were Clerics (3.0), Bards (3.5) and Rangers (3.5/Pathfinder). Fighter archer not so much except maybe 2 levels. Any class that could abuse rapid shot and stackable bonuses really. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Zardnaar wrote:

 True the best archers I saw in 3rd ed though were Clerics (3.0), Bards (3.5) and Rangers (3.5/Pathfinder). Fighter archer not so much except maybe 2 levels. Any class that could abuse rapid shot and stackable bonuses really. 

Those classes you mentioned multiclassed into fighter quite often for some extra combat feats (Precision Shot, Rapid Shot, Point-Blank Shot, Weapon Focus, etc.) and in case of the cleric/bard to gain a better base attack bonus and propably an extra attack.

 

Still why not make a workable archery fighter via a workable subclass? NEXT should make that pretty easy to achieve.

The reallife Amazon that inspired the Greek myths is: a nomadic horseback archer.

 

Their Scythian culture originated north of the Black Sea, but spread widely, and later intermingled with Sarmatian culture. In the Ukraine, about 25% of their warrior graves are women warriors.

 

The understanding is, the males and females gender-divided into separate groups. The adult men formed hunting groups that would be far away for months at a time. The women remained in gathering groups, while also tending children, elderly, as well as livestock and possessions. The women had to be able to defend themselves (and their children and elders) competently while men were absent. Thus the women organized their own warrior groups, similar to the men. Meanwhile, the women formed the center of the culture, with men orbiting around, whence the preservation of paleolithic matriarchal traditions. The idea is, there is no social role for a father. All sons are loyal to their own mother. Thus alliances among mothers tend to make the collective decisions of the group, whence matriarchy.

 

For D&D, the ‘Amazon’ is essentially a mounted archer class, with a militaristic, matriarchal, nomadic, horseback culture.

 

 

 

The ‘Berserker’ is a magical rager, relating to shamanism and shapeshifting.

Hmmm. I might prefer the Amazon horseback archer as a Barbarian subclass. These women warriors had a reputation for fierce combat.

 

In the tradition of gender-neutrality, I feel it is fine to refer to a mounted archer Barbarian as an ‘Amazon’, whether male or female.

Haldrik wrote:

Hmmm. I might prefer the Amazon horseback archer as a Barbarian subclass. These women warriors had a reputation for fierce combat.

In the tradition of gender-neutrality, I feel it is fine to refer to a mounted archer Barbarian as an ‘Amazon’, whether male or female.

Wasn't that horseback shortbow issue actually a common fighting technique among the huns and mongolians, too? I don't think this is restricted to women.

the_move wrote:

 

Haldrik wrote:

Hmmm. I might prefer the Amazon horseback archer as a Barbarian subclass. These women warriors had a reputation for fierce combat.

In the tradition of gender-neutrality, I feel it is fine to refer to a mounted archer Barbarian as an ‘Amazon’, whether male or female.

 

Wasn't that horseback shortbow issue actually a common fighting technique among the huns and mongolians, too? I don't think this is restricted to women.

Yeah. the Huns et al came after the Scythians, but inherited much of their ancient horseback archer culture.

 

Still, I would rather call the Barbarian subclass an ‘Amazon’, than ‘Scythian’ or ‘Hun’, because ‘Amazon’ is such a thought-provoking archetype.

 

Heh, if women can be called a ‘Warlock’, then men can be called an ‘Amazon’.

the_move wrote:

What about an archer subclass? It seems to me that everyone treats the fighter as a melee-only class (again), though he's also able to choose the Archery fighting style and has good premises in form of his extra attacks and Action Surge, but has no subclass to extend these. Admitted, the Warrior subclass does work on it, but doesn't hand out specific ranged fighting goods and the Archery Mastery feat is imho a bit meager to back it up completely.

Archer subclass would be good.   Its understandable why one would treat the fighter as a melee class - his abilities tend to revolve on dealing out massive damage with high-hit die weapons, and being a take.   Archers play to neither of those strengths.     Its like a high strength rogue - while possible, not exactly something the default class is made for.     We don't even really need a subclass specifically for archery - just one that supports Dex-based fighters of all ilks.    Could include a swashbuckler style thing as well as potential archery.   

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways.   Fighter subclasses.    I think that I heard that combat manuevers were moving from fighter subclass to just Warrior stuff in general; things that barbarians could share in as well.   So, that leaves the Crit-fisher as the main subclass that'll hang around as is.    There might be a subclass that focuses on being better at manuvers, might not.    I think we're going to be getting a Warlord subclass - action surge and second wind fighter stuff fit so well into how the martial warlord worked in 4e that I doubt they'll miss doing it.   And there was talk of Eldritch Knight as a fighter subclass.  

 

I don't know.   The fighter, overall, seems pretty bland to me.   Its a generic Weapon Master class.   Its identity is one of a professional warrior.   Now, I don't really want to have subclasses that are basically "better at using weapon T" or the like.   But I'm not sure how many variations there are on warriors without running into the other classes stick.

 

Fighters to classes as humans are to races - a generic unit that doesn't have an identity other than "I'm generically good at most things."

the_move wrote:

 

Haldrik wrote:

Hmmm. I might prefer the Amazon horseback archer as a Barbarian subclass. These women warriors had a reputation for fierce combat.

In the tradition of gender-neutrality, I feel it is fine to refer to a mounted archer Barbarian as an ‘Amazon’, whether male or female.

 

Wasn't that horseback shortbow issue actually a common fighting technique among the huns and mongolians, too? I don't think this is restricted to women.

 

First reference in Middle Eastern literature is to the Gimmiri (Assyrian) in the 8th century BC. The illustrations make it clear they were mounted horse archers. They were the first of the "nomad hordes" to impinge on the consciousness of the settled states adjacent to the steppe regions, though I believe there are some Chinese records mentioning mounted barbarian archers that are nearly as old. The modern English version of their name is Cimmerian, as in the people Conan came from.  No wonder he didn't go back, horse archery was really never his thing. 

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

Bluenose wrote:

 

the_move wrote:

 

Haldrik wrote:

Hmmm. I might prefer the Amazon horseback archer as a Barbarian subclass. These women warriors had a reputation for fierce combat.

In the tradition of gender-neutrality, I feel it is fine to refer to a mounted archer Barbarian as an ‘Amazon’, whether male or female.

 

Wasn't that horseback shortbow issue actually a common fighting technique among the huns and mongolians, too? I don't think this is restricted to women.

 

 

First reference in Middle Eastern literature is to the Gimmiri (Assyrian) in the 8th century BC. The illustrations make it clear they were mounted horse archers. They were the first of the "nomad hordes" to impinge on the consciousness of the settled states adjacent to the steppe regions, though I believe there are some Chinese records mentioning mounted barbarian archers that are nearly as old. The modern English version of their name is Cimmerian, as in the people Conan came from.  No wonder he didn't go back, horse archery was really never his thing. 

Horseback archery isnt restricted to shortbows  either ...  

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Thanks, G.  I got stuck in Youtube because of that video.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Miladoon wrote:

Thanks, G.  I got stuck in Youtube because of that video.

There are some impressive russian sword dance videos out there too. (much better than the irish ones)

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Garthanos wrote:

Horseback archery isnt restricted to shortbows  either ... 

You are telling me nothing, that I haven't known before already.

 

Yes, the Japanese used longbows, but their bows are quite different, as their grips are not centered. They are on the lower half of the bow to give the arrow some extra speed and penetration. That also helped using the bow on a horseback since you are holding such a longbow higher than an ordinary longbow with a centered grip.

 

Using an English longbow on a horseback instead will be quite cumbersome for sure, as you find your horse's body/head often being in the way especially if you want to turn around left to right or vice versa.. Nevertheless, the huns, the mongolians, and the amazons used shortbows while riding, since they're lighter and handier.

 

 

 

 

the_move wrote:

 

Garthanos wrote:

Horseback archery isnt restricted to shortbows  either ... 

 

Yes, the Japanese used longbows, but their bows are quite different, as their grips are not centered. They are on the lower half of the bow to give the arrow some extra speed and penetration. That also helped using the bow on a horseback since you are holding such a longbow higher than an ordinary longbow with a centered grip.

The English Longbow also wasnt recurved - but the Sareacens of he same era I think were.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

the_move wrote:

 

Garthanos wrote:

Horseback archery isnt restricted to shortbows  either ... 

 

Yes, the Japanese used longbows, but their bows are quite different, as their grips are not centered. They are on the lower half of the bow to give the arrow some extra speed and penetration. That also helped using the bow on a horseback since you are holding such a longbow higher than an ordinary longbow with a centered grip.

 

Using an English longbow on a horseback instead will be quite cumbersome for sure, as you find your horse's body/head often being in the way especially if you want to turn around left to right or vice versa. Nevertheless, the huns, the mongolians, and the amazons used shortbows while riding..

 

I consider the Japanese yumi to be a composite longbow, in D&D parlance.

 

Some good videos of kyodo (Japanese archery) yabusame (mounted archery) can be found here, here and here.

Garthanos wrote:

 

Miladoon wrote:

Thanks, G.  I got stuck in Youtube because of that video.

 

There are some impressive russian sword dance videos out there too. (much better than the irish ones)

 

Heresy!

 

And of all days to imply such a thing, you pick St. Paddy's day?!  There's some bad juju heading your way, Garth.  Just given ya Fair Warnin'!  :P

 

Personal Opinion, I think a lot of the Irish/Scottish traditions fell prey to English meddling, especially by the Victorians.  Historical examples described the Sword Dance as a passionate, vibrant display of skill and daring that could, and did, cause harm if the dancers were not in sync.  Not to be confused with the tame examples taught today, where a pair of swords are put on the floor and danced around instead of being wielded.

Part of what I was looking for was 1. Interesting options beyond swing/shoot and 2. Something that had weight in the other two pillars of play.

LupusRegalis wrote:

 

Garthanos wrote:

 

Miladoon wrote:

Thanks, G.  I got stuck in Youtube because of that video.

 

There are some impressive russian sword dance videos out there too. (much better than the irish ones)

 

 

Heresy!

 

And of all days to imply such a thing, you pick St. Paddy's day?!  There's some bad juju heading your way, Garth.  Just given ya Fair Warnin'!  :P

Hey the silly irish /scottish videos have the swords on the ground

LupusRegalis wrote:

Personal Opinion, I think a lot of the Irish/Scottish traditions fell prey to English meddling, especially by the Victorians.  Historical examples described the Sword Dance as a passionate, vibrant display of skill and daring that could, and did, cause harm if the dancers were not in sync.  Not to be confused with the tame examples taught today, where a pair of swords are put on the floor and danced around instead of being wielded.

That's what I bloody well thought they ought to be like and why I was incredibly dissapointed with the videos I could find!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OuaMsaSiQU

 

I would dearly love an irish/scottish example with awesome blade whirling
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

LOL, I agree Garth.

 

I just meant it was Heresy to disparage the Irish on St. Patricks Day!  

Lady_Auralla wrote:

Part of what I was looking for was 1. Interesting options beyond swing/shoot and 2. Something that had weight in the other two pillars of play.

 

Many moons ago, I suggested that the Fighter should have Hunter and Knight subclasses that would fulfill the non-magical variants of Rangers and Paladins. Add in Warlord as the non-magical "inspiring leader" Bard, too.

 

Beyond that, a Gish subclass that gives limited arcane spellcasting would be great.

Wounds Module [updated for Basic]

Proficiency Module

Azzy1974 wrote:

I consider the Japanese yumi to be a composite longbow, in D&D parlance.

Some good videos of kyodo (Japanese archery) yabusame (mounted archery) can be found here, here and here.

I never said it isn't a longbow.

 

"The yumi is asymmetric; According to the All Nippon Kyudo Federation, the grip (nigiri) has to be positioned at about two thirds of the distance from the upper tip."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yumi

 

See? The lower half is not much longer than that of a shortbow. That's why it's handier on a horseback and while kneeling.

 

Now, the Yumi in D&D parlance would be superior to any european style longbow in that it should for example have a higher damage dice or to be able to ignore resistance to piercing damage....or something else beneficial.

 

 

 

Lady_Auralla wrote:

Part of what I was looking for was 1. Interesting options beyond swing/shoot and 2. Something that had weight in the other two pillars of play.

 

 

So I actually tried to create some subclasses that fulfilled both those criteria HERE. The isssue is that subclasses simply are not robust enough to provide the variety of non-combat utility that something like spells can provide. The warblade, even with stances, maneuvers, and subclasses chosen to enhance the non-combat utility aspects of the class, will still be far behind the Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and any other spellcasting class. There is simply nothing you can do to a class that will provide utility on the same level as spells.

 

That isn't necessarily a bad thing though. Some classes have different area's of strength than others and as long as the differences aren't so overwhelming as to make one class mandatory or another obsolete, then I think the game will survive. But without a robust system of "skill tricks" "expert feats" or "martial practices" I doubt we will ever see non-magical characters with a significant amount of non-combat utility. Even the rogue the archetypal "skill monkey" pales in comparison to the utility provided by spells. Afterall, what use are athletics, acrobatics, and stealth when compared to levitation and invisibility. Sure the rogue can do his trick more than 4 times per day, but when you really need something done stealthily, when success truly matters most, having magic tends to be better than having skill.

the_move wrote:

 

Azzy1974 wrote:

I consider the Japanese yumi to be a composite longbow, in D&D parlance.

Some good videos of kyodo (Japanese archery) yabusame (mounted archery) can be found here, here and here.

 

I never said it isn't a longbow.

 

And I never said that you did. I think that you've made the mistake of thinking that I  was arguing with you... I wasn't. I was using your post as a spingboard to offer my 2 cents ans share some videos for those that may find them elucidating..

LupusRegalis wrote:

LOL, I agree Garth.

 

I just meant it was Heresy to disparage the Irish on St. Patricks Day!  

Heh, modern irish poorly keeping up with the power their heritage... hmmm

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Azzy1974 wrote:

And I never said that you did. I think that you've made the mistake of thinking that I  was arguing with you... I wasn't. I was using your post as a spingboard to offer my 2 cents ans share some videos for those that may find them elucidating..

You've my apologies.

the_move wrote:
Now, the Yumi in D&D parlance would be superior to any european style longbow in that it should for example have a higher damage dice or to be able to ignore resistance to piercing damage....or something else beneficial.

 

This, however, I will argue... I see no compelling reason to treat the yumi as anything other than a normal composite longbow.

the_move wrote:

 

Azzy1974 wrote:

And I never said that you did. I think that you've made the mistake of thinking that I  was arguing with you... I wasn't. I was using your post as a spingboard to offer my 2 cents ans share some videos for those that may find them elucidating..

 

You've my apologies.

 

Thank you, and no worries.

Lawolf wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:

Part of what I was looking for was 1. Interesting options beyond swing/shoot and 2. Something that had weight in the other two pillars of play.

So I actually tried to create some subclasses that fulfilled both those criteria HERE. The isssue is that subclasses simply are not robust enough to provide the variety of non-combat utility that something like spells can provide. 

 

But without a robust system of "skill tricks" "expert feats" or "martial practices" I doubt we will ever see non-magical characters with a significant amount of non-combat utility. Even the rogue the archetypal "skill monkey" pales in comparison to the utility provided by spells. Afterall, what use are athletics, acrobatics, and stealth when compared to levitation and invisibility. Sure the rogue can do his trick more than 4 times per day, but when you really need something done stealthily, when success truly matters most, having magic tends to be better than having skill.

I think that's the key.  The rogue gives up some fighting ability to be really good at skills - and skills can't compare to spells.  Meanwhile, the fighter traditionally gives up virtually all skill for combat ability - which also can't compare to spells.  It makes no sense to have two mundane classes dividing between them a set of abilities that already can't compete with what spells give any given caster.  Just combine them.  Give one class everything the fighter has ever gotten /and/ everything the rogue has ever gotten - it still won't be in any danger of overshadowing casters.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

How about a subclass that provides some extra skills or new uses for existing ones? That can be worked into a subclass. I think something like Scout could work and at least add into the exploration pillar.  I think that if a subclass is going to give extra pillar weight then we should aim for 1 extra pillar not 2 as the design space is a little tight.

Tony_Vargas wrote:

 

Lawolf wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:

Part of what I was looking for was 1. Interesting options beyond swing/shoot and 2. Something that had weight in the other two pillars of play.

So I actually tried to create some subclasses that fulfilled both those criteria HERE. The isssue is that subclasses simply are not robust enough to provide the variety of non-combat utility that something like spells can provide. 

 

But without a robust system of "skill tricks" "expert feats" or "martial practices" I doubt we will ever see non-magical characters with a significant amount of non-combat utility. Even the rogue the archetypal "skill monkey" pales in comparison to the utility provided by spells. Afterall, what use are athletics, acrobatics, and stealth when compared to levitation and invisibility. Sure the rogue can do his trick more than 4 times per day, but when you really need something done stealthily, when success truly matters most, having magic tends to be better than having skill.

 

I think that's the key.  The rogue gives up some fighting ability to be really good at skills - and skills can't compare to spells.  Meanwhile, the fighter traditionally gives up virtually all skill for combat ability - which also can't compare to spells.  It makes no sense to have two mundane classes dividing between them a set of abilities that already can't compete with what spells give any given caster.  Just combine them.  Give one class everything the fighter has ever gotten /and/ everything the rogue has ever gotten - it still won't be in any danger of overshadowing casters.

So the problem is in the design of subclasses they just dont have enough space to provide any real impact.

Lady_Auralla wrote:

Now That I have foud it Here is a list of 2E Fighter Kits:

Amazon; (I wonder what the male equivelent would be?)

Barbarian

Beast Rider

Beserker

Cavalier

Gladiator

Myrmidon

Noble Warrior

Peasant Hero

Pirate/outlaw

Samurai

Savage

Swashbuckler

Wilderness Warrior

 

Now some of these are other classes or backgrounds but may see some use. Also another thing I noticed was a it of Go Team Wild.

 

As far as subclasses, what I'd like to see is:

  • Berserker (and just get rid of the Barbarian class, and make a Barbarian background—that way you can have more varied barabarians)
  • Pugilist (again, get rid of the Monk class and create an Acetic background—now we can have more unarmed martial artists)
  • Weapon Master/Kensei (specializes and increases ability in a single weapon)
  • Equestrian (fills the nich of the cavalier, as well as light horsemen—with appropriate backgrounds you can have knights, samurai, barbarian mounted archers, etc.)
  • Swashbuckler (lightly armored warrior with finesse and style—get your prirates, musketeers, and such here)

Of course, I'd be open to more options, as well.

 

I can't really see any suggested subclass do far that can't be created with multi-classing.

 

I made a character concept once: fighter 2, bard 3, rogue 1. Eight lots of expertise to issue between his skills made sure he was (in theory at least) a pretty good all rounder when it came to interaction.

Lady_Auralla wrote:

 

Tony_Vargas wrote:

 

Lawolf wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:

Part of what I was looking for was 1. Interesting options beyond swing/shoot and 2. Something that had weight in the other two pillars of play.

So I actually tried to create some subclasses that fulfilled both those criteria HERE. The isssue is that subclasses simply are not robust enough to provide the variety of non-combat utility that something like spells can provide. 

 

But without a robust system of "skill tricks" "expert feats" or "martial practices" I doubt we will ever see non-magical characters with a significant amount of non-combat utility. Even the rogue the archetypal "skill monkey" pales in comparison to the utility provided by spells. Afterall, what use are athletics, acrobatics, and stealth when compared to levitation and invisibility. Sure the rogue can do his trick more than 4 times per day, but when you really need something done stealthily, when success truly matters most, having magic tends to be better than having skill.

 

I think that's the key.  The rogue gives up some fighting ability to be really good at skills - and skills can't compare to spells.  Meanwhile, the fighter traditionally gives up virtually all skill for combat ability - which also can't compare to spells.  It makes no sense to have two mundane classes dividing between them a set of abilities that already can't compete with what spells give any given caster.  Just combine them.  Give one class everything the fighter has ever gotten /and/ everything the rogue has ever gotten - it still won't be in any danger of overshadowing casters.

So the problem is in the design of subclasses they just dont have enough space to provide any real impact.

 

Not just that though. Imagine a world where martial classes had proficiency in all d20 rolls. That would effectively mean they are trained in all skills. Such a class would still have less utility than a spellcaster. That is just the way D&D works. Without a robust system of non-magical extraordinary tricks such as expert feats, skill tricks, martial practices, and skill utility powers, there just isn't a way for mundane means to even remotely compare to magic. 

In reallife, the ‘composite bow’ and the ‘short bow’ mean the same thing.

 

The ‘long bow’ is made from a single piece of wood, ideally yew wood. Thus the longbow is also called a ‘self bow’, in the sense of being made out of a single self-same piece of wood.

 

However, a ‘short bow’ is short in order to wield better while on horseback. In order to maintain the effectiveness of a short bow it is made from a ‘composite’ of materials: wood, horn, animal sinew, and lacquer. The composite short bow has force and range that is as effective as a longbow, however the nature of its construction is more sensitive to water damage.

 

 

 

The Japanese yumi is probably the best reallife example of the D&D ‘great bow’.

Sign In to post comments