April Unearthed Arcana: Gothic Heroes

[DireSickFish]

Look a thing! Still reading and forming opinions. I like the idea of Revrants, might use it in my game if a character dies.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/gothic-heroes

Edit: The fighter sublass is a nice battlemaster style fighter. Adding to saves is way cool but the damage uses for the superiority die are done better by the current battlemaster. I like Monster Slayer as those types of creatures should be showing up a lot at those levels.

Not a fan of the Rogue sublcass but that's more to do with the games I play than the class itself. It might be hard to give them the proper benefit for all that investigation if I hadn't already been planning on giving away clues.

[DanyBallon]

Revenant are a good idea, that could be useful to let a deceased character to stick around until the completion of the adventure, or longer if the DM and player agree to it.

Monster Hunter isn't bad, but I'm a bit tired of Superiority Dice. While I can see how versatile they can be, I feel that it's an easy solution for the developpers not to come with new features for the fighter.

The Inquisitive isn't bad either, but is not appealing to me. Naybe after one or two more reread I'll change my mind.

[Gastronomie]

They do seem like they didn't put much effort into creating new mechanics, but they certainly do seem interesting. They give us nice fluff and some interesting ideas for characters, as well as hooks for campaigns they might get involved into.

[Serafina]

Well, the Revenant is absolutely not suited for general use. Heck, it actually forces players away from pursuing their goal - there is no incentive to fulfill it, and fulfilling it kills you permanently.
That's just bad design. And the benefits...you always auto-heal up to half hit points, and better yet you come back to life if you're slain, automatically and for free. That's really strong.
So the only really way to do this justice is to have a single-issue campaign, where the player knows the character will die, actually works towards the goal, and the GM takes the strengths into account.


The Monster hunter is once again a Variant Battle Master. Admittedly, I do like those - but I can see how they can be boring.
You get two proficiencies, and in skills instead of tools (but you can still take any tool you want, which is good).
You get to cast detect magic and protection from good and evil as rituals. Both of which is quite useful, and a nice addition.
You get four maneuvers: Precision Attack, one damage-enhancer that has high odds of breaking concentration, something to add to Wisdom, Intelligence and Charisma-saves and something to add to Perception or Insight.
Instead of learning new maneuvers at 7, 10 and 15 you get one "maneuver" at 7 which is really just "add two dice to damage, and maximize the damage against certain enemies". It's really strong, but not exactly new. At least you get more superiority dice and the 15th-level free refresh.

Overall, I do like the concept. Adding Superiority Dice to saves is nice, adding Superiority Dice to skills is nice. Precision Attack may not be that good, but it's nice enough. The bonus-damage maneuver with concentration-breaking is nice, I actually wish that was a universal one. And of course, extra skills and some rituals are very nice for fighters.
But it's pretty front-loaded. After 7th-level, you don't gain anything a normal battle master wouldn't and lose out on maneuvers.


The Inquisitive Rogue?
Well, you become better at detecting lies - you can roll, and choose to fall back on having rolled an 8. Nice reliability.
You can spot hidden creatures, objects and clues as a bonus action. Means you'll be hard to ambush at the very least.
Better, it allows you to try and beat an enemy at a skill-check (which is basically guaranteed against those not trained in the skill, and still has good odds against others) to get automatic sneak attack against them. Even if you're at disadvantage, which is nice.
At 13th level, you can spend an action to auto-notice illusions, shapeshifters and other such deceptions. Not good in combat, pretty good out of it if your campaign features such things.
And last but not least, you gain 2D6 extra sneak attack when you use your auto-sneak attack feature.

Seems like a decent enough archetype for me, nothing too strong, but good features.

[Belac93]

I like the subclasses.

The revanent I'm a bit iffy on. Its nice in a certain type of game, but would be annoying in other. To pull it off, you would need a good DM, and an even better player.

I feel like it could also be balanced out by making the group on a time limit. So, they might have to leave the revanent behind until they can catch up.

Another interesting thing I noticed, was that apparently, revanents are not undead. In no place on their stat block write-up does it give any undead abilities, beyond coming back to life. So they still need to breath, eat, sleep, and drink, unlike MM revanents.

[Gastronomie]

I like the subclasses.

The revanent I'm a bit iffy on. Its nice in a certain type of game, but would be annoying in other. To pull it off, you would need a good DM, and an even better player.

I feel like it could also be balanced out by making the group on a time limit. So, they might have to leave the revanent behind until they can catch up.

Another interesting thing I noticed, was that apparently, revanents are not undead. In no place on their stat block write-up does it give any undead abilities, beyond coming back to life. So they still need to breath, eat, sleep, and drink, unlike MM revanents.Of course the DM always has the right to tweak it around and homebrew it as a method of saving dead characters the players REALLY wanna keep on using, letting them come back to life instead of giving them eternal rest.

[Thomeyis]

Revenant looks good if an entire campaign is dedicated to the PCs completing a single objective in a very dangerous world. The auto-res lets them take on insurmountable odds and continue to fail until they find something that sticks. Something like Edge of Tomorrow/All You Need Is Kill could be a fun basis. Otherwise it would be good for a recurring NPC villain.

I really like monster hunter just for some built-in mental defenses and generally useful boosts from superiority dice. It's not exciting but everything is good in-combat and the bonus skills/tools give you more out-of-combat use as a straight fighter. I agree that it's incredibly front-loaded though. Inquisitive looks like a ton of flavor with a good sneak attack enabler tacked on. Would definitely play in a game with enough mystery and intrigue.

[JackPhoenix]

I love how they explain that revenants shouldn't be used with half-elves and half-orcs, because they don't use subraces...and then it presents revenant as an option for human, dragonborn and tiefling which don't have any subraces (not counting UA and SCAG tiefling variants, which, strictly speaking, aren't subraces).

I don't see a problem with endgoal for the character...for published campaigns, it can be stuff like killing Tiamat or Strahd, or defeating the cults of the Elemental Evil...the moment when the campaign would end up anyway. It's worse in sandbox campaign, but even then, it could be used to give your character some direction. I wouldn't mind playing a character with limited lifespan.

[Ralanr]

Monster hunter feels unneeded. I can understand giving other classes superiority dice, but the fighter doesn't need two subclasses that provide it. It doesn't feel very different or unique to me.

Dragonborn revenant damage type makes sense, so much so that I've discussed the idea on and off with my friends for years (though in 4e I think it would have been negative energy. I'm probably mixing up a bunch of unfinished pathfinder homebrew of mine though).

[DanyBallon]

I love how they explain that revenants shouldn't be used with half-elves and half-orcs, because they don't use subraces...and then it presents revenant as an option for human, dragonborn and tiefling which don't have any subraces (not counting UA and SCAG tiefling variants, which, strictly speaking, aren't subraces)

They specify that Revenant can be applied to races that don't have subraces, but in this very playtest they provide rules only for the humans and dragonborns so DM that want to playtest the UA Revenant shouldn't allow H-Elf and H-Orc. As for tiefling, they refer you to a previous UA article for inspiration on how to modify the base race for the revenant.

[Temperjoke]

In a sense, becoming a revenant ensures what happens to a character after the campaign is done, because ideally, their goal should be fulfilled by that point. It also could mean that if someone dies early on, before the players have access to resurrection spells, the DM has an option to keep the story going without trying to figure out how to shoehorn a new PC in.

[eastmabl]

I love how they explain that revenants shouldn't be used with half-elves and half-orcs, because they don't use subraces...and then it presents revenant as an option for human, dragonborn and tiefling which don't have any subraces (not counting UA and SCAG tiefling variants, which, strictly speaking, aren't subraces).

I don't see a problem with endgoal for the character...for published campaigns, it can be stuff like killing Tiamat or Strahd, or defeating the cults of the Elemental Evil...the moment when the campaign would end up anyway. It's worse in sandbox campaign, but even then, it could be used to give your character some direction. I wouldn't mind playing a character with limited lifespan.

To be fair, dragonborn have subraces of the parent dragon. Calling each dragonborn option a subrace would make their entry in the PHB much more complicated.

But yes, to claim that there's a human subrace is silly.

[DireSickFish]

Revenant could be good even if his objective isn't the end of the campaign. Allowing a character to come back and finish up a subplot or sidequest makes it a lot less awkward to get a new PC integrated with the party. I see it more of a DM tool than a player tool. And if the first death was kinda uninspiring it allows them to go out with a bang.

[DanyBallon]

In a sense, becoming a revenant ensures what happens to a character after the campaign is done, because ideally, their goal should be fulfilled by that point. It also could mean that if someone dies early on, before the players have access to resurrection spells, the DM has an option to keep the story going without trying to figure out how to shoehorn a new PC in.

This! Also, the Revenant end goal is a nice creative tool for DM and player alike. It certain occasion it can push the story forward (if the responsable of the character death is the BBEG or if the character had a goal in life that he didn't fullfil, etc.)

But it should remain something temporary, and the player should know it. Even this can bring creative twist as a character getting to like its new condition start working against achieving its end goal. This could lead to character turning up on the party, on causing dire consequence to others...

The more I think about it, the more I like the revenant

[JackPhoenix]

They specify that Revenant can be applied to races that don't have subraces, but in this very playtest they provide rules only for the humans and dragonborns so DM that want to playtest the UA Revenant shouldn't allow H-Elf and H-Orc. As for tiefling, they refer you to a previous UA article for inspiration on how to modify the base race for the revenant.

I know, I wouldn't remember the tiefling options without that mention, however, I was mostly pointing out that the wording is strange: "Because half-*elves and half-orcs have no subrace options, they shouldn’t be used with these revenant subrace rules."

It shouldn't be be because they have no subrace options, but despite it, the revenant is specifically made for races with no subraces, and is omited from these two races because there was no room in the article for them/because WotC was too lazy to include them/whatever reason

[Douche]

Monster Hunter isn't bad, but I'm a bit tired of Superiority Dice. While I can see how versatile they can be, I feel that it's an easy solution for the developpers not to come with new features for the fighter.

That was my first thought too. I feel like every time they come up with a new fighter archetype, they're just making more superiority dice. They're cool but I'd like some more unique features.

I think the concept of a monster hunter is better done with the Blood Hunter homebrew by Matt Mercer (and probably where they got this idea in the first place). You can find it on dms guild.

[DireSickFish]

But it should remain something temporary, and the player should know it. Even this can bring creative twist as a character getting to like its new condition start working against achieving its end goal. This could lead to character turning up on the party, on causing dire consequence to others...

The more I think about it, the more I like the revenant

If my players ever acted against completing their objective to remain alive longer I would kill them permanently as they now lack the drive that brought them from the grave in the first place.

[DanyBallon]

If my players ever acted against completing their objective to remain alive longer I would kill them permanently as they now lack the drive that brought them from the grave in the first place.

I'm not as harsh. If it can move the story move fowards I will adapt, but I'll advice the player, that depending on it's actions he may change alignment and if he moves toward evil (I'm not into evil campaign), or too much antagonist his character may end up a NPC. Just like I would do with a character would have decide to side with the enemey instead of continuing with the group.

[Temperjoke]

If my players ever acted against completing their objective to remain alive longer I would kill them permanently as they now lack the drive that brought them from the grave in the first place.

Yeah, this. In a sense, the revenant option seems like a paladin oath, if you are fulfilling it then you keep your powers, or in this case life. But when you act against it, you begin to lose those powers/life. If a player tried something like that, I'd probably give them some sort of weakness as a warning sign (like how poisoning gives disadvantage on rolls), just so they're not totally caught offguard by suddenly dying permanently.


That actually brings up another thought/question: let's say you and the player decide to go with the revenant option, but later the option for a normal resurrection becomes available. Would you allow them to resurrect, losing the revenant subrace? I'm kind of the opinion of saying no, or at least, no to anything less than a resurrection on a divine intervention scale. Allowing the option to resurrect properly later seems to open the revenant subrace for abuse "Oh, we're in the middle of a dungeon right now, let me come back as a revenant and then I'll go back to town later and get rezzed by the town cleric."

[pwykersotz]

That actually brings up another thought/question: let's say you and the player decide to go with the revenant option, but later the option for a normal resurrection becomes available. Would you allow them to resurrect, losing the revenant subrace? I'm kind of the opinion of saying no, or at least, no to anything less than a resurrection on a divine intervention scale. Allowing the option to resurrect properly later seems to open the revenant subrace for abuse "Oh, we're in the middle of a dungeon right now, let me come back as a revenant and then I'll go back to town later and get rezzed by the town cleric."

From a certain perspective, that's desirable. Keeping players in the game can sometimes be a trick.

On the other hand, if you want to penalize resurrecting a Revenant, you can require special circumstances. Such as requiring their goal to be completed before they can be raised, making the cost to raise them higher, making the resurrection penalties last longer, or only allowing resurrection or true resurrection to work.

[DireSickFish]

That actually brings up another thought/question: let's say you and the player decide to go with the revenant option, but later the option for a normal resurrection becomes available. Would you allow them to resurrect, losing the revenant subrace? I'm kind of the opinion of saying no, or at least, no to anything less than a resurrection on a divine intervention scale. Allowing the option to resurrect properly later seems to open the revenant subrace for abuse "Oh, we're in the middle of a dungeon right now, let me come back as a revenant and then I'll go back to town later and get rezzed by the town cleric."

I'd most likely allow it, but it is situational. As I said this is more a DM tool than a player tool so they couldn't "chose" to come back as a revenant every time they die to continue the adventure, just to be rezzed later. I wouldn't give them the option to revenant if they had the means to get raise dead and were using it.

[Douche]

From a certain perspective, that's desirable. Keeping players in the game can sometimes be a trick.

On the other hand, if you want to penalize resurrecting a Revenant, you can require special circumstances. Such as requiring their goal to be completed before they can be raised, making the cost to raise them higher, making the resurrection penalties last longer, or only allowing resurrection or true resurrection to work.

I think that a revenant would require some dark magicks n such. Probably such a lust for revenge that some primal force refused to let you die. I don't think that resurrection is an option anymore after your black heart has accepted the option of becoming a mockery of life. But, ya know, that's just fluff.

Besides that, they mentioned that you can't get resurrected after you complete your task. I feel like they overlooked this question of being resurrected while you're still a revenant though... they should have just said no resurrection, period. There is no way to return to the life you once had.

[JumboWheat01]

Inquisitive GREATLY interests me, it's pretty much the way I like to play a rogue, not as a dirty scoundrel but as a more pragmatic individual who's trying to ferret out the dirty scoundrels. It also looks like it will work with ranged weapons, which after the success of my little halfling thief rogue has become my main way of wanting to play them.

Monster Hunter, however, should totally have been given to Rangers. I know WotC seems to have abandoned the Ranger they made this edition, but the Monster Hunter archtype here just screams to be fit onto the Ranger chassis.

I'm not entirely sure what to think about the Revenant. It doesn't strike me as overly interesting, but I can see how it would appeal to others. To me, if my character dies, he dies. Family swearing revenge is as good a reason for someone to take up revenge as any other.

[Regitnui]

OK, first off, let me say that as an Eberron fan, the Inquisitive is a welcome addition. The Monster Hunter... eh. I don't really get a sense of quality from the write8up, so can't say yes, it's good or no it's bad. The Revenant... Thanks, but no thanks.

[Fishybugs]

That was my first thought too. I feel like every time they come up with a new fighter archetype, they're just making more superiority dice. They're cool but I'd like some more unique features.

Yeah, that's gonna be the first thing I put in the survey when it comes out. Someone at WotC came up with the superiority dice idea, and now that's all they're doing. It's a great feature and fun to use, but if they put it everywhere, it'll lose what's special about it.

[Belac93]

Just a note. Dwarf Revanents can have +3 Con. I think I would limit that to: If the race you were originally had has a +2 bonus to constitution, you instead gain +1 to 1 ability score of your choice.

[DireSickFish]

Just a note. Dwarf Revanents can have +3 Con. I think I would limit that to: If the race you were originally had has a +2 bonus to constitution, you instead gain +1 to 1 ability score of your choice.

He's also immortal. I wouldn't be worried so much about having 18 con at lvl1 or whatever.

[Demonic Spoon]

Just a note. Dwarf Revanents can have +3 Con. I think I would limit that to: If the race you were originally had has a +2 bonus to constitution, you instead gain +1 to 1 ability score of your choice.

Why?

No class has CON as its primary ability score, and a dwarf revenant gets no other ability score bonuses.

Compared to, for example, a variant human, a dwarf revenant can have 15 in its primary stat and 18 in CON, whereas a vuman can have 16-17 in one and 16 in the other. I would argue that the latter is usually more optimal

[Belac93]

Why?

No class has CON as its primary ability score, and a dwarf revenant gets no other ability score bonuses.

Compared to, for example, a variant human, a dwarf revenant can have 15 in its primary stat and 18 in CON, whereas a vuman can have 16-17 in one and 16 in the other. I would argue that the latter is usually more optimal

Why not?

Mainly just because I like the 4e/5e tradition of all races having no bonuses higher than +3, and no ability score penalties. It just feels more balanced. I'm sure its actually not as good as having a pair of 16s, but it still seems like its breaking the design point they had for this edition.

I'm fine with +3 Con, I just like +2 Con +1 Something Else better.

[Gtdead]

I don't care about the revenant. It seems more of a monster class than anything else to me.

I like both subclasses. Slap a couple knowledge cleric level to them and they become pretty amazing for a social campaign.

[PoeticDwarf]

I don't care about the revenant. It seems more of a monster class than anything else to me.

I like both subclasses. Slap a couple knowledge cleric level to them and they become pretty amazing for a social campaign.
Me too. Revenant is weird but nice subclasses. Especially rogue

[Visser3SansTheP]

Yeah, that's gonna be the first thing I put in the survey when it comes out. Someone at WotC came up with the superiority dice idea, and now that's all they're doing. It's a great feature and fun to use, but if they put it everywhere, it'll lose what's special about it.

They're using it the way they would a full subsystem. They didn't create a proper martial subsystem (in case what that is is unclear, spellcasting is an example of another subsystem) but when creating things they naturally end up creating niches that a martial subsystem is necessary for. But since they didn't actually make one because the people who grew up on 2e and hate change would go nuts at them for giving people a way to play complex martials, they default to the battlemaster's superiority dice system because it's the closest thing they have.

[Zalabim]

I'm pretty sure it's related to a Mearls comment that they spent a lot of time on the mechanics of Champions and Battle Masters but didn't give them a strong archetypal theme like the EK and other class supaths have. Both are just different mechanics for a generic fighter.

Also, you can make as many different variations on the BM fighter's superiority dice as you like within the fighter class and just call them variants. It's like wizards having different spells, or sorcerers getting different things to spend sorcery points on, or warlocks getting different invocations. It's a recognizably unique feature, so spreading it to many different classes dilutes it, but using it many different ways for one class is utilizing it.

[Gwendol]

The Revenant looks more like a monster template than an actual PC option. I can see how it will add to a specific campaign, offering PC's a chance to finish their goal, or whatever, but it feels niche enough not to really warrant an entry.
The subclasses are great, the monster hunter not the most innovative perhaps, but kind of the champion of battlemasters, which I'm sure will find play. The rogue feels like it can be very strong in the right campaign.
Still, for gothic I was hoping for a sorcerer variant (warlocks already being full-on goths).

[Visser3SansTheP]

The Revenant looks more like a monster template than an actual PC option. I can see how it will add to a specific campaign, offering PC's a chance to finish their goal, or whatever, but it feels niche enough not to really warrant an entry.
The subclasses are great, the monster hunter not the most innovative perhaps, but kind of the champion of battlemasters, which I'm sure will find play. The rogue feels like it can be very strong in the right campaign.
Still, for gothic I was hoping for a sorcerer variant (warlocks already being full-on goths).

Why would templates and PC options need to be different things?

[Sir cryosin]

I can see the subclass Revenant pairing nicely with the undying warlock, way of long death monk.

[Regitnui]

Also, you can make as many different variations on the BM fighter's superiority dice as you like within the fighter class and just call them variants. It's like wizards having different spells, or sorcerers getting different things to spend sorcery points on, or warlocks getting different invocations. It's a recognizably unique feature, so spreading it to many different classes dilutes it, but using it many different ways for one class is utilizing it.

I was hoping someone would point this out. Yeah, the fighter subclasses are using superiority dice a lot, but the rogue subclasses all use sneak attacks in different ways... If the superiority dice stays a fighter class mechanic, as opposed to a mechanic for any martial like Fighting Styles, I see no problem with it.

[Visser3SansTheP]

I was hoping someone would point this out. Yeah, the fighter subclasses are using superiority dice a lot, but the rogue subclasses all use sneak attacks in different ways... If the superiority dice stays a fighter class mechanic, as opposed to a mechanic for any martial like Fighting Styles, I see no problem with it.

Yeah, that works. I'm mostly thinking of what they did for spell-less ranger - they took one subsystem out, groped around in the dark for one to replace it with but never created one so ended up grabbing superiority dice and cramming them into the resulting gap.

[Gwendol]

Why would templates and PC options need to be different things?

They are different. One is a template applied to a race, while options tend to be coupled to the class (beside the obvious choices of race and background at PC creation).

[Dimolyth]

Well, as for me subclasses are somehow repetative. "Monster Hunter" is just reflavored spell-less ranger withsome thematic shtics. "Inquisitor" is more thematically advanced Mastermind Rogue.
Revenant... well, it is far from balanced. And why it is not undead anymore? I had never been a fan of revenants, but isn`t that is kind of tradition?

[DeAnno]

I think Monster Hunter isn't getting enough credit, he's a badass that just gets things done. Let's look at what it gives us:


Precision Attack, and a precision attack that doesn't interfere with other maneuvers. Excellent.
Superiority Dice to Int/Wis/Cha saves. This is simply amazing and can easily prevent you from being nailed by a save-or-suck/die in the first or second round. Sure Indomitable and Lucky are great but you can't spam those. Remember that since you can roll your D20 first and that since accuracy in this edition is bounded, it is very easy to judge when you should spend a superiority die on this. This is surely worth two maneuvers all by itself, if not more due to being passive.
Monster Slayer is actually better than it's getting credit for too. Aberrations, Fey, Fiends, and Undeads all together are pretty common, and more importantly are also easy to recognize. It might seem wasteful to dump two dice, but in a do-or-die situation you want to be burning your dice fast anyways, and dropping two dice for 16, 20, or 24 damage in just one hit is a pretty big amount, especially when you consider you could do this 3 times in the course of one Extra Attack to do 72 damage all by itself against something that absolutely needs to die exactly right now. I would say it's worth a maneuver.
Giving disadvantage on concentration to hold a spell seems like it won't come up much, but when it does you will be very happy to have it. This isn't a great maneuver but it's also not awful.
You can use superiority dice for the most common uses of two Wis based skills. This is a great synergy for making Wis your tertiary stat after Con and Str/Dex.
Two skills from a wonderful list.
Some random spells, you might even cast them someday.
If you really want Maneuvers, you're a Fighter, just take Martial Adept and get 2 and +1 die. Who knows your DM might even let you take precision attack, it stacks with your ability by RAW.
You get to call yourself a Monster Hunter!


I mean sure Battlemaster is going to have more versatility to do interesting things in combat, but unlike the Champion Monster Hunter is all about novas and winning, and can spend a feat to get the best of Battlemaster too. I just got party wiped tonight and I am psyched to roll one of these guys up in two weeks!

[DanyBallon]

I think Monster Hunter isn't getting enough credit, he's a badass that just gets things done.

I think some of the complains come from the fact that it's the third fighter archetype that use superiority dice. In fact the only new archetype that don't use them is the Purple Dragon Knight in the SCAG.

[Regitnui]

Inquisitor" is more thematically advanced Mastermind Rogue.

Inquisitive! Fury's frigid f- *sees banhammer* floppy tail! The new subclass is called an inquisitive! It's an Eberron import, where the "Master Inquisitive" was a prestige class revolving around investigative mechanics. I can see the confusion, but an Inquisitor is more OoV Paladin or a future cleric subclass. Why would a rogue, traditionally "criminal", have a subclass about intolerantly enforcing laws?

[JumboWheat01]

Inquisitive! Fury's frigid f- *sees banhammer* floppy tail! The new subclass is called an inquisitive! It's an Eberron import, where the "Master Inquisitive" was a prestige class revolving around investigative mechanics. I can see the confusion, but an Inquisitor is more OoV Paladin or a future cleric subclass. Why would a rogue, traditionally "criminal", have a subclass about intolerantly enforcing laws?

Because being a law-abiding rogue is actually quite fun. Using their own skills against them to catch those dirty thieves or murderers is quite pleasing.

[Regitnui]

Because being a law-abiding rogue is actually quite fun. Using their own skills against them to catch those dirty thieves or murderers is quite pleasing.

Hence Inquisitive (Sherlock Holmes) as opposed to Inquisitor (BURN HERETIC).

[RickAllison]

Hence Inquisitive (Sherlock Holmes) as opposed to Inquisitor (BURN HERETIC).

But I love burning heretics! What am I going to do with my acid, my needles, my block-and-tackle, my caltrops, my candles, my pitons, my fishing tackle, my sledgehammer, my hunting traps, my thumbscrews, my battering ram, and my waterskin for? Impromptu torture implements is a much more fun use than their intended purpose.

[Temperjoke]

But I love burning heretics! What am I going to do with my acid, my needles, my block-and-tackle, my caltrops, my candles, my pitons, my fishing tackle, my sledgehammer, my hunting traps, my thumbscrews, my battering ram, and my waterskin for? Impromptu torture implements is a much more fun use than their intended purpose.

Thumbscrews were intended as a torture device, I believe.

[DireSickFish]

hence inquisitive (sherlock holmes) as opposed to inquisitor (burn heretic).

deus vult!

[RickAllison]

Thumbscrews were intended as a torture device, I believe.

Yes, but I figured no one would really get my intention if I said manacles. Other than that, everything was just from the PHB equipment list!

[Belac93]

Yes, but I figured no one would really get my intention if I said manacles. Other than that, everything was just from the PHB equipment list!

I like using Leatherworkers tools and Iron Spikes with my characters. :smalleek:

[NewDM]

They're using it the way they would a full subsystem. They didn't create a proper martial subsystem (in case what that is is unclear, spellcasting is an example of another subsystem) but when creating things they naturally end up creating niches that a martial subsystem is necessary for. But since they didn't actually make one because the people who grew up on 2e and hate change would go nuts at them for giving people a way to play complex martials, they default to the battlemaster's superiority dice system because it's the closest thing they have.

Actually the superiority dice were created by a person on the WotC forums during the play test. Since anything posted on the forums becomes WotC property, they used it. Along with a bunch of other ideas from various posters.

I remember one poster had an entire thread dedicated to how having multiple enemies made the difficulty of an encounter go up exponentially, and they integrated that into the system too.

I'm not sure if those forums can be viewed anymore, but if you had patience you could go back and track most of the features of 5e to either previous editions or to specific posters.

Since they didn't actually come up with them, I'm on the fence as to whether they could do better.

I would love to see a "Tactician" Fighter Archetype that replicated the Warlord of 4E by using at-will, encounter, and daily 'maneuvers'

[Regitnui]

I would love to see a "Tactician" Fighter Archetype that replicated the Warlord of 4E by using at-will, encounter, and daily 'maneuvers'

D&D Next, built by the community, filtered and balanced by professionals.

Well, the thing is that you only get 5 subclass features. Though, a sort of fully-martial Arcane Knight with a small 'spell' list might not go amiss, if they limit it to effects that can be realistically gotten via waving your sword around. For example, inflicting blindness and deafness can be fluffed as cutting the appropriate tools, confusion by slamming the hilt or flat against the head/brain location, and frightened by a boosted intimidation.

The important thing to prevent it stepping on the toes of casting would be that the abilities cannot be used at range and that they target one or two opponents at most. There's no purely physical way of blinding someone more than five feet away with a mêlée weapon, after all.

[djreynolds]

I like the fighter, short rest dependent. Almost like a paladin's smite.

But I would feel better if they gave the ranger something like this for favored enemies as well. Even double hunter's mark.

I like it, but it would be better served with the ranger chassis,

[Fable Wright]

My take:

Revenant means I can now run Dark Souls/Bloodborne-style 5e campaigns. I am okay with this. Shame about how it's much better on some races than on others, but what can you do? The auto-res probably isn't a problem, and could even be curtailed by imposing some logical restrictions on their death. For example, coming back didn't grant you a short or long rest, and you missed a lot of the adventure besides. Constant regen up to half health, on the other hand, gets very silly with death saving throws. You will act every round unless you were struck down, then three more people attacked you to keep you that way. Starting each fight with at least half health is powerful, but something that can usually be expected of PCs. Really, I'd say that it's pretty balanced so long as you don't go from 0 to 1hp at the start of your turn automatically.

Monster Hunter: Yeah, features are boring from 10-18. That said, I still love this archetype. Why? It means I can play the smart guy fighter. Move over Eldritch Knight, I just got two knowledge proficiencies and a language with a bit of ritual casting. That said, I dearly wish that Hunter's Mysticism could have been expanded at levels 10 and 18 rather than the size of the bonus dice. Let the Battlemaster have the biggest dice bonus and selection, and give the Monster Hunter their unique roles. Right now I'm liable to just build a Monster Hunter 12/Assassin 7/Warlock 1 with Ritual Caster to get the kind of flavor and mechanics I want rather than go straight MH; getting Expertise on Knowledge skills, a handful more SLAs/rituals, and some way of becoming a more skill-based fighter instead of the levels 10-18 features on Monster Hunter would hook me there for the long haul.

Inquisitive: Some of the abilities strike me as a bit odd. Why does standing still let you see better? Why doesn't Unerring Eye give you a clue about what kind of strange thing is occurring? Mechanically, the class is fine, but it still strikes me as off.

[X3r4ph]

Regarding Monster Hunter, if he scores a critical and spends 2 two superiority dices (let's say 2d10) does it turn into 4d10?

And if the target was an undead, are they maximized so it takes 40 extra damage?

And if the said maneuver, where you chose to expend a superiority dice to deal extra damage, is sweeping attack (taken through Martial Adept), does the other undead next to it also take 40 damage?

Just wondering how powerful this feature is.

[NewDM]

D&D Next, built by the community, filtered and balanced by professionals.

Well, the thing is that you only get 5 subclass features. Though, a sort of fully-martial Arcane Knight with a small 'spell' list might not go amiss, if they limit it to effects that can be realistically gotten via waving your sword around. For example, inflicting blindness and deafness can be fluffed as cutting the appropriate tools, confusion by slamming the hilt or flat against the head/brain location, and frightened by a boosted intimidation.

The important thing to prevent it stepping on the toes of casting would be that the abilities cannot be used at range and that they target one or two opponents at most. There's no purely physical way of blinding someone more than five feet away with a mêlée weapon, after all.

That's odd. I could have swore the Battle Master Fighter got a list of maneuvers to choose from as a single class feature.

It would be easy they would take all the similar powers of 4e and reduce the redundancy. Then they would get to pick up to 2 at-will maneuvers, 1 encounter maneuver, and 1 daily maneuver. Then at higher levels they would have a chart that shows which kind of maneuver they pick. Or the maneuvers they picked simply scale with level and can be used multiple times. For instance:

Warlord Fighter Archetype

Combat Leader
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level you grant your allies within 50 feet of you, that can see and hear you a +2 to their initiative rolls.

Inspiring Word
At 3rd level a Warlord can inspire their allies to ignore wounds and fight on. A single ally within 25 feet can use a hit dice to heal themselves as a reaction with a bonus of +1d6. The warlord can use this feature twice per encounter. No matter how inspiring the warlord is, people can only be inspired to greatness once or twice in a short period of time. (DMs can refluff this as characters using their reaction at the direction of the warlord to patch up wounds).

Maneuvers
Choose two of the following maneuvers at 3rd level.
Commander's Presence. As an action you can direct an ally to make a single attack or cast a cantrip as a reaction. They gain a bonus to the attack roll equal to your intelligence modifier.
Furious Smash. As an action make a melee attack against an enemy. Instead of dealing damage you deal your strength modifier in damage. An ally of your choice gains a bonus to their next attack against the enemy equal to your charisma modifier if they attack it before the start of your next turn.
Viper's Strike. As an action make a melee attack against an enemy. Resolve the attack normally. If the target moves before the start of your next turn, an ally of your choice can make a melee attack against it.
Wolf Pack Tactics As an action an ally that can see you and is within 50 feet can move 5 feet as a reaction. After they move make a melee attack against an enemy and resolve as normal.

Choose one maneuver below at 3rd level. You may use this maneuver once per encounter. Enemies that see you do these maneuvers know what to expect, and thus you can't use it on them again within 1 minute.
(... Encounter maneuvers ...)

Choose one maneuver below at 3rd level. You may use this maneuver once per day. Due to these maneuvers being so exhausting and enemies that see you do these maneuvers know what to expect, and thus you can't use them again until you take a long rest.
(... Daily maneuvers ...)

Commanding Presence
At 7th level choose one of the following benefits:

Inspiring Presence - When an ally within 50 feet of you, that can see and hear you uses their inspiration they gains temporary hit points equal to 1/2 your level + your charisma modifier. (At your DMs discretion the temporary hit points can instead be healing)
Tactical Presence - When an ally within 50 feet of you, that can see and hear you uses their inspiration they gain a bonus to the roll equal to your intelligence modifier.


At 7th choose X more encounter/daily maneuvers.

At 15th choose X more encounter and daily maneuvers.

At 17th choose X more encounter/daily maneuvers.

[Regitnui]

That's odd. I could have swore the Battle Master Fighter got a list of maneuvers to choose from as a single class feature.


Was and am AFB.