Speculation What do you wanna see in the remaining class UAs? [Archive]

Auramis

2016-11-29, 11:32 PM

Pex

2016-11-30, 12:03 AM

A paladin who can smite at range.

Flashy

2016-11-30, 12:04 AM

A paladin who can smite at range.

Filed under "crap that should really have been in the game from the beginning."

Auramis

2016-11-30, 12:13 AM

A paladin who can smite at range.

... and my mind has been blown, because I had completely overlooked this option. Definitely wanna see this.

Arkhios

2016-11-30, 12:31 AM

Question's in the title, friends. Thus far, we've got the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, and Druid. That leaves us with Fighter, Monk, Mystic (allegedly?), Paladin, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard. Of those remaining, what are y'all folks hoping to see?

A few things I'd like to see are the Knight (tank-centric fighter), a new Artificer (Rogue or Wizard), Fae and Celestial Sorcerers, a reworked Necromancer Wizard, and Dragon Themed archetypes for anybody, really.

Fighter: Knight or Warlord would be nice, but for me anything goes really. Divine 1/3-caster. Edit: why would we need Knight, there's a background for being one.
Monk: Drunken Master. Maybe Zen Archer or some weapon master that could use unorthodox weapons as monk weapons.
Mystic: I could see it would be just after the base classes have been ran down. But I'd like to see more sub-classes for it, something like: Psychic Warrior, Psion, Wilder, and Soulknife, maybe even Psionic Fist.
Although I could see that psychic warrior was a martial archetype, a Psionic Fist as a monastic tradition, a Wilder as a Sorcerous Origin, and Soulknife as a roguish archetype.
Paladin: wishful thinking, but revised Oathbreaker as something else than the blatantly evil, fiend/undead fanboy from DMG. Or just redefined rules for fallen paladin.
One thing that's been itching me for a while would be a spell-less paladin variant. Also, Ranged paladin.
Ranger: Revised Ranger, and new take on spell-less variant.
Rogue: Divine 1/3-caster. Sneak Attack revised (Rogue weapon proficiency issues, such as that they are proficient with longsword but they can't use it for sneak attack, wtf?) Artificer sub-class iteration.
Sorcerer: revised favored soul origin (could become the celestial origin), Elemental origin (genie-kind etc.), Fey origin.
Warlock: new patrons maybe.
Wizard: as much as I'd like artificer become a class of its own, as an arcane tradition it would be second best thing. Theurgist vol. 2.
Universalist Wizard.

Toadkiller

2016-11-30, 12:31 AM

What disadvantage would you place on that? Can't smite in melee maybe? Cause othwrwise it blows the others away. No spells could be another alternative perhaps.

Arkhios

2016-11-30, 12:37 AM

What disadvantage would you place on that? Can't smite in melee maybe? Cause othwrwise it blows the others away. No spells could be another alternative perhaps.

Less or smaller dice on the ranged smite? Since Divine Smite is from 2nd level while sub-class begins at 3rd, so it wouldn't make sense for suddenly being unable to smite in melee.

Foxhound438

2016-11-30, 12:40 AM

Fighter: mostly a "warlord" support type fighter that's more interesting than the PDK. Something with maybe a SR recharge team buff, for example.

Monk: we have 5 of these, not really lacking anything personally. Maybe a refurbished 4e monk, but not anything new.
edit: a subclass that can use more weapons to decent effect would be nice. Greatsword with dex sounds fun, if not a little unbalanced.

Mystic: hopefully not broken as f*** this time.

Paladin: probably an archer subclass would be good, I like the pathfinder smite bow archetype.

Rogue: I don't play these, and the people who do are often "problem players" are drawn to the class in my experience. Nothing specific, but maybe something interesting will show up

Sorc: a more balanced clerical themed version would be nice, maybe a fey or elemental sorc? elemental is pretty well covered to a degree with draconic and storm though, so it's up in the air for me

Warlock: something better than the SCAG one for a secondary support role. No specific needs, but a better healing patron would be nice. A more debuff-centric warlock would be nice too, something reminiscent of PF witch.

Wizard: with all the schools and then some covered, I'm at a loss of what to give here.

DrDinocrusher

2016-11-30, 12:56 AM

Fighter: a duelist/weapon master style fighter, warlord, and phalanx fighter.

Monk: DRUNKEN MASTER, zen archer, some kind of weapon specialist who can focus on stuff like a longsword and uses their ki on battlemaster esque maneuvers, internal master.

Paladin: I guess an angelic oath? Ranged options discussed above sound cool.

Rogue: we've got a lot of the classic archetypes covered by now. I guess a poisoner, sniper/throwing weapon expert, and thug.

Sorc: celestial, fiend, and fey ancestries.

Warlock: draconic, shadow, and maybe nature options.

Wizard: artificer and another spell blade type archetype I guess? Not too sure what they can get other than artificer.

Mortis_Elrod

2016-11-30, 01:26 AM

Going with the 3 subclasses only per UA I'd like something like this, most of which people already thought of.

Fighter: Pugilist or something similar, monk without mysticism. A hexblade. And lastly an anointed knight type, that focuses on one weapon, maybe kensai.
Monk: Tattoo monk, drunken monk, Zen archer.
Mystic: Soulknife, Body Enhancer/Modifcations, Pure psion.
Paladin: Oath of Archery/Precision, anything to give me ranged smites. Mounted focused paladin. I know they get find steed and all, but maybe some mounted only stuff would be cool. And a better/updated edge lord choice. I want to be a Good Dark knight. Like batman. but not have to have this whole "vengeance above all else" vibe. More like "some fight fire with fire, I fight Darkness with DARKNESS"
Ranger: new revised ranger. I remember 3.5 had a wildshaping ranger, that be cool. Arcane Archer build be nice too.
Rogue: Bomber/saboteur/trapmaker subclass is what i want. 1/3 divine caster would be cool too, be an assassin for your god, like the 4e Avenger i think. Oh and a gambler/luck based guy. like gambit.
Sorcerer: Undead origins. I want to play the guy that lives and breaths necrotic energy, because its literally apart of me and not something i studied or prayed for. Oh and i don't hide in the shadows for it. Better Favored soul or celestial origin but i will also take Aberrant origin. Fey origin is also nice or Infernal/Fiendish.
Warlock: more pacts more invocations and more patrons. Solar. Machine. Hivemind. The Huntsman. a Pact armor would be cool. Lots of good things they can do with Warlock because its almost like you get to choose two subclasses instead of one.
Wizard: Better Artificer, though i want it to be its own class. Runescribe or carver or something similar. I like the Archivist from Pathfinder, (3rd party path of iron) and i like Runes as a concept in D&D. besides those to....mabe an alchemy focused one? though i think that should be in the artificer.

Finback

2016-11-30, 02:27 AM

As odd and as awkward to implement as it might sound, I'd like to see a STR based monk. Something slower, but heavier-hitting; that archetype of the big, slow guy who can punch a boulder in half, to counterpoint his monk friends who leap about like they are on wires...

Fighter really needs a Knight; most other takes can be implemented through multiclassing, but a knight is a distinct flavour from a paladin. Also, a Warlord, but rather than a Battlemaster-in-another-hat, a Warlord should be able to expend superiority dice to move other people around - repositioning them on the battlefield without any loss to their own combat.

JakOfAllTirades

2016-11-30, 03:22 AM

I want a Fighter who can throw things! Melee fighters and archers get to have all the fun, but there's almost no support at all right now for a fighter whose preferred weapons are thrown.

I miss my 3.5E Master Thrower, I guess....

Spiritchaser

2016-11-30, 06:14 AM

I'd like to playtest a kind of arcane half caster Paladin subclass.

Yes i really think this would be better served by its own class, but I'd love to try it and see if it works... Think a wizard-centric spell list, a magical secrets type ability that allows some extra spells from the wizard list, and channel divinity options that support arcane casting somehow... Maybe one power could allow advantage or proficiency in dispel/counterspell.

Possibly even permit the use of Int instead of cha.

Kobard

2016-11-30, 07:01 AM

Fighter: treasure-hunter, duelist, slayer
* I feel that a knight or warlord is already (unfortunately) already partially covered by the Purple Dragon Knight and the Battlemaster.

Monk: zen archer, drunken master, miracle worker (divine)

Paladin: archer subclass (hello, Order of the Silver Flame!) - Oath of Purity/Truth?, Oath of Steel/Coin (the mercenary paladin), Oath of Liberation (chaos, freedom, revolution subclass)

Ranger: arcane archer, druidic wild shaper, spell-less

Rogue: shadowdancer, inquisitor (divine subclass), a warlock-rogue that converts their sneak attack into a spell attack

Sorcerer: fey, undead, mind, or aberration

Warlock: New Patrons: dragons, wheel of fate/doom, ancestors. Also, more invocations (especially for Tomelock) and pact boon options.

Wizard: universalist tradition

Sigreid

2016-11-30, 07:31 AM

I would like to see a magical pet class. Perhaps with Celestial, Fiend, Fey and Construct sub-classes.

DiceDiceBaby

2016-11-30, 07:50 AM

Warlock: Demigod - Patron is a D&D god or goddess that spawned it; relationship between Warlock and Patron is akin to parent-child or relative-kin. Unlike a Cleric who worships or obeys the will of a D&D god directly, the Warlock is a Demigod and a blood relative, and therefore can ask for invocations, favors and gifts from their divine parent or ancestor. As many Domains as Clerics, please, or at least spells that are part of the iconic Cleric spell list. Shenanigans when Warlocks of divine parentage meet Clerics who worship their mom or dad. :smallbiggrin:

Auramis

2016-11-30, 07:53 AM

One thing that's been itching me for a while would be a spell-less paladin variant. Also, Ranged paladin.
Ranger: Revised Ranger, and new take on spell-less variant.

Spell-less variants for both of these is something I definitely want to see. I, once again, didn't even think about them. I would adore it.

Edit: I've seen people say revised ranger, and I'm wondering what exactly people are wanting from that. We got a revised ranger in UA recently with the revised Beast Master, Hunter, and Stalker. What's wrong with that? A short answer would be nice, or a direct message. Wanna keep the thread focused on a UA wish list.

Millstone85

2016-11-30, 08:00 AM

Warlock: Demigod - Patron is a D&D god or goddess that spawned itSo maybe I am not the only one who thinks the Favored Soul sorcerer and the Undying Light warlock should switch classes.

Aett_Thorn

2016-11-30, 08:36 AM

Most of my wishlist has already been covered by others above, but just in case they do actually check this thread for ideas, I'll go with the following:

1) Monk: Zen Archer, Tavern Fighter (increased improvised weapon damage as if they were Monk weapons)

2) Ranger: Slinger/Sharpshooter spell-less variant. Also, I would love to get some new spells for melee Rangers. They have a ton of ranged spells, but few that help a melee ranger.

3) Rogue: Would love to see a Divine 1/3 caster as mentioned above. Also, a Smuggler sub-class could be fun, or a true Spellthief

4) Sorc: Something like a Fey origin that focuses on charms and illusion-type spells. Why should Wizards have all the fun here?

5) Warlock: a Debuff-y type Warlock like a Witch would be great

6) Wizard: Elementalist Wizards, Shadow Weave Wizard

Belac93

2016-11-30, 09:53 AM

Fighter: Warlord, and a more Swashbuckly sort of character (gets bonuses for using one weapon without a shield, and unarmoured).

Monk: Drunken master, and maybe some sort of character who specializes in using weapons.

Paladin: Someone who can attack at range, and maybe a 'Oath of Flame' with mobility, and an AOE aura of fire damage.

Ranger: The Revised Ranger 2.0, with a spell-less variant.

Rogue: Divine Trickster (arcane trickster), an Ebberon-sort, with magitech, and a thug.

Sorcerer: All the origins not already in the game. So: Undead, Abberation, Fey, and so on. Maybe a Truenamer as well.

Warlock: Vestige Pact, and Ur-Priest. A new pact boon, maybe a cloak or suit of armour, as well as new invocations.

Wizard: Artificer 2.0, a Shadowcaster who doesn't need a normal spellbook (maybe they store their spells in a shadow familiar), and a Universalist.

Arkhios

2016-11-30, 09:58 AM

What about Warlock Pact Boon: Ring ? :D

Edit: I've seen people say revised ranger, and I'm wondering what exactly people are wanting from that. We got a revised ranger in UA recently with the revised Beast Master, Hunter, and Stalker. What's wrong with that? A short answer would be nice, or a direct message. Wanna keep the thread focused on a UA wish list.

There's some animosity towards the latest version's favored enemies being a bit too widespread (especially since humanoids is the most numerous type).

Also, some people have issues with initiative advantage from level one (or was it two?)
For me, it's more of a wish to see it with having its finishing touches made. The latest version was pretty solid in my opinion. The way they handled the subclasses (both in that they named them Conclaves and that they get extra attack based on subclass, not on base class). I would pay a decent sum to furthermore not have to guess are people referring to Battle Masters or Beast Masters with the abreviation 'BM' when it's said out of context. BC would more clearly refer to Beast Conclave (or Before Christ), HC to Hunter Conclave (or to Hardcore, Hate Club, or "heroic dungeons in WoW"), and DSC to Dark Stalker Conclave (though I'd prefer it being called just Stalker Conclave - and having it pulled back from the underdark theme altogether)

thepsyker

2016-11-30, 10:19 AM

Fighter: I know this won't happen, but a fighter that uses maneuvers that trigger off Ability/Skill checks instead of Superiority Dice, or really just anything that doesn't use Superiority Dice to pull of its shtick. Edit: The unarmored swashbucklery fighter mentioned up thread could also be cool so long as it is Superiority Dice free.

Monk: A Kensai/Weapon Master archetype - let it chose a non-heavy, non-two-handed Martial weapon as a Weapon of Choice and count it as a Monk Weapon give it some ability to use that weapon with the martial Arts bonus attack and Flurry of Blows and some way to use Ki to power up the weapon and I think you could have a really fun character.

Paladin: Originally didn't have any suggestion for this, but a Ranged Smiter sounds like it could be cool.

Ranger: IDK, they just seem to be getting the revision of the core class nailed down so not sure what really to suggest for sub-classes.

Rogue: Maybe a scout/sniper Rogue of some sort, although honestly with the proper skills, feats, and background selections that isn't to hard to pull off currently.

Sorcerer: Elemental bloodlines, revised Favored Soul and maybe a pure Arcane bloodline for a more "generic" Sorcerer with out the goofiness of the Wild Mage?

Warlock: Celestial Pact? Just more "good" aligned pact options for players who like the feel of Warlock, but don't necessarily want to make a character with either the angst or moral ambiguity of a deal with the Devil/Cthulhu.

Wizard: Maybe a generalist wizard that with abilities less tied to any particular school of magic? Or a Ritualist wizard that focuses on using Rituals could be interesting.

Oramac

2016-11-30, 10:45 AM

Fighter: Nothing specific on my wish list

Monk: Nothing specific on my wish list

Mystic: Not the Mystic UA. That was terrible. Honestly, see the Psion in my sig. I'd rather just play that.

Paladin: Ranged Smites would be cool.

Ranger: I honestly think they're going to skip the Ranger since we already got the Revised Ranger. Most likely they'll do the Mystic in its place. If they do in fact do the Ranger, I want to see an updated Revised Ranger, specifically with the Beast Master companion getting magical strikes.

Rogue: An assassin that doesn't suck would be cool.

Sorcerer: Updated Favored Soul would be neat.

Warlock: Don't like locks. Don't care.

Wizard: Meh. Nothing specific on my wish list

rooneg

2016-11-30, 10:51 AM

For wizard I'd like to see a generic mage, not specialized in any particular school of magic.

Spiritchaser

2016-11-30, 11:58 AM

At first I read ranged Smites and thought bow... And then thought... Meh... Not for me.

Then I recalled fist of heaven Paladins from D2. Something like that would be cool...

As for the aura, just putting spirit guardians on the list would be close...

Foxhound438

2016-11-30, 12:19 PM

I would like to see a magical pet class. Perhaps with Celestial, Fiend, Fey and Construct sub-classes.

I'd like to see something like this too, but remember that PF-esque summoners are exceedingly difficult to balance.

Foxhound438

2016-11-30, 12:30 PM

Oh, and another thing, I'd like to see more pact specific invocations for warlock- I always fancied the idea of giving a bladelock something like Cloud's blade beam for an effective multi-target attack with a decent amount of cool factor, for example.

MrFahrenheit

2016-11-30, 12:32 PM

Less or smaller dice on the ranged smite? Since Divine Smite is from 2nd level while sub-class begins at 3rd, so it wouldn't make sense for suddenly being unable to smite in melee.

Don't nerf the damage die, but take two slots to smite at range.

Arkhios

2016-11-30, 12:37 PM

Don't nerf the damage die, but take two slots to smite at range.

In theory that might work. In practice, maybe not, depending how many slots you can have.

-1d8 per slot could be a possible solution.

MrFahrenheit

2016-11-30, 01:10 PM

In theory that might work. In practice, maybe not, depending how many slots you can have.

-1d8 per slot could be a possible solution.

Two of the same slots, perhaps? Would force more careful conservation/use of the spell slots. And seeing that only first level slots cap at an even number, there wouldn't be too many. That's a hell of a nerf though. Perhaps a later class feature could let you get a 1:1 ratio if you're using the last available slot - call it "desperate smite" or something.

Pex

2016-11-30, 01:16 PM

The smite at range could be the 7th level feature of a new Oath.

Joe the Rat

2016-11-30, 01:19 PM

Double slot expenditure might be too punitive. Would higher cost, or smaller nova be the better deal here?

In general: Dragon stuff (Patrons / Oaths / Ways / related specialties). Variant resources. Elemental, Planar, Genie, Fey, Spirit concepts. I've got some overlaps as possibilities.

Fighter: ... I don't really have any good ideas here. Lazy me says Sacred Knight (Templar?), a 1/3 cleric caster, but that's basically paladin without the smite. More maneuvers, 0-cost maneuvers ("stances"), though they may require having unspent superiority die, perhaps borderline-to-actually magical maneuvers - as a separate class if need be.

Monk: Alternate weapon traditions (requires balancing), possibly as part of a weapon-focused tradition, drunken style, sacred fist (divine four winds)

Paladin: enh, Domain Oaths? Oath of the Dragon for Dragon Shaman-type traits, or Oath of the Dragon-Slayer for better elemental resisting and death-dealing?

Ranger: I'm not touching.

Rogue: Factotum. The ability to mega-man different class abilities, with a Long (eventually short) rest reset.

Sorcerer: Elemental Heritage, Fey Heritage, Outsider Heritage (Celestial, Fiendish... Slaad). Cursed Heritage? Spirit-binding?

Warlock: More pacts would be cool. Pact of The Star Chain Runes for the knowledge/divination angle. I'd love to see a creature-channeling subtype (assuming powers/ abilities, but not full form of creatures). Druid is already out (so no geomancers), but this might not be a bad place for it... a "Pact of the Claw". Patronwise: Dragon Patron for some DFA love. Genie Lord Patrons. Spirit Binder/Totem: Rather than a single powerful entity, you pact with or bind lesser spirits to power your spells and invocations. And Ur-Priest.

Wizard: ... ... Arcane Archer? What the hell, we have Bladesingers. Spell-infused arrows are awesome, if tricky to balance. Another stab at the Artificer? An Elementalist might be fun (picturing a sort of Evoc/Conj/Trans hybrid). I could see a Ritualist specialist - expanded access to rituals (a la Book of Shadows) & cheaper transcription costs, Circle/Coven type synergies with multiple ritual casters, boosted effects...

CaptainSarathai

2016-11-30, 01:51 PM

I'd want to see them "fix" some of the oddball options, really. I'd be willing to give up new subclasses in favor of more options for existing ones. Things that are deemed sub-par or include odd taxes, I want those fixed.

Fighter: a proper dual-wielding option. A dedicated Archer would also be cool.

Monk: something to help out Element monks. New spells or something, maybe, specific to the monk?

Rogue: Thug. But it has to very carefully done or else it becomes a gateway to people SAing with greatswords.

Warlock: decentralize the 2 main builds, particularly the Blade Pact. I doubt that will happen though, because the design of the class is too spikey - they'd have to either nerf down existing options, or end up with very powerful options to make anything new worthwhile.

GlenSmash!

2016-11-30, 03:03 PM

A more Warlordy fighter would be great, PDK from SCAG just didn't quite cut it for me.

Grappler Monk.

On that same token, Unarmed options for Barbarian or Fighter (though I know they already did Barbs)

Any variant of Sorcerer.

DKing9114

2016-11-30, 03:05 PM

What about Warlock Pact Boon: Ring ? :D

There's some animosity towards the latest version's favored enemies being a bit too widespread (especially since humanoids is the most numerous type).

I would be okay with the new ranger handling humanoids the same way the PHB ranger did. You pick two humanoid races as favored enemies, which offsets the fact that the benefit from each one is a little underpowered relative to the other options

Sigreid

2016-11-30, 03:13 PM

On a slightly different note, I'm still worried about 2 things. First that new options will be so much cooler than the old options that the phb options become essentially abandoned because only a fool would take them. Second that they'll get into more of the 4e style abilities of forcing your opponent to spend their action in a certain way. I know a lot of people liked 4e, but in my opinion that changes the game in a negative way by pre-defining tactics.

T.G. Oskar

2016-11-30, 03:30 PM

Fighter: I agree with the idea that the Fighter should get a more focused "Warlord/Marshal" option than the Battlemaster, but I'd love to see new maneuvers that cover that as well. I'd definitely like to see a Kensai/Weapon Master archetype in the Fighter rather than in the Monk, where it can do stuff using superiority dice rather than Ki while specializing in one weapon at once.

Monk: I also agree with Drunken Master (using drinks to recover Ki, but with the intoxication imposing a set of balances) and Zen Archer (using Wis for ranged attacks, proficiency with Longbow, treat Longbow as monk weapon for purposes of Flurry, and maybe Sharpshooter options). However, I'd love to see more options for the Four Elements Monk, maybe some that were missing from the Tattooed Monk.

Paladin: That's a tough one, since Paladins don't have many Sacred Oaths (all of them have been officially released, even Oathbreaker). The Oath of the Crown is already a solid tank, so I'd need to see a Hospitaler (Oath of Hospitality) that makes it a solid healer (though, I prefer they'd use my Oath of Martyrdom, as it combines both; one could dream, no?) Oh, and a small quirk where they say "Paladins get Warding Bond as a level 2 spell", because that was an oversight on their part.

Ranger: I'd say set the Arcane Archer here. They already worked with Deep Stalker and added magic; this could make the Ranger have some Wizard spells added to their list, channel them through their weapon, and work as a sort of ranged Eldritch Knight. If using the Revised edition, perhaps at the cost of their Extra Attack, but in a way where damage isn't entirely sacrificed. The Phasing Arrow and Arrow of Slaying could become Ranger spells.

Rogue: Another tough one. Temple Raider for divine spells? Rogues have been blessed with a lot of Roguish Archetypes in UA and even in the SCAG (two, compared to others' one). Maybe a variant Sneak Attack that works like 3.5's Skirmish?

Sorcerer: There's a lot of potential here for Sorcerous Origins. However, seeing each existing Sorcerous Origin get a free list of spells would be pretty cool. As for which Origins? Giant-blooded/Jotunbrood could be one (a Sorcerer that's both physically imposing and magically empowered, as the Titans or more powerful giants), Fey (if Warlocks can get powers from fey, Sorcerers should have an origin where their grandpappy got lucky with a Nymph and thus gained powers; this could work as a way for Sorcerers to dip into Druid spells), maybe an Origin where you're from the nobility of a Magocracy and magic just seeped into your bloodline.

Warlock: More invocations and more pact boons. That can help every Warlock. And the Great Wyrm Pact would be awesome, to revive the Dragonfire Adept!

Wizard: Whatever they do to them, please, no Artificer. Artificer needs to be its own class. Geometer and Song Magician could work, though :P

rooneg

2016-11-30, 03:47 PM

Oooh, for a fighter I'd like higher level maneuvers. Give me some that require you to have X levels in fighter before you can take them or something, but that do super cool things.

Kane0

2016-11-30, 03:53 PM

Fighter: Warlord, Weapon specialist, hexblade

Monk: Weapon master/kensai, brawler, incarnum

Paladin: Ranged, cavalier, incarnum

Ranger: Arcane Archer, scout/skirmisher, outrider

Rogue: Tinkerer, Thug, Thrower, spellthief

Sorcerer: Fiend, Fey, Celestial, Undead, shapechanger, giant

Warlock: better undead, binder/vestige, incarnum, dragonfire shaman/adept, titan, hag (witch)

Wizard: Alchemist, geomancer, summoner, ritual specialist

tieren

2016-11-30, 04:05 PM

There was a 2e ranger kit for a Green Ranger that effectively turned into a small treant, had permanent barkskin, could spawn additional limbs, etc... I would really like to see something like that.

Arkhios

2016-11-30, 04:12 PM

I would be okay with the new ranger handling humanoids the same way the PHB ranger did. You pick two humanoid races as favored enemies, which offsets the fact that the benefit from each one is a little underpowered relative to the other options
Honestly, I have no beef with the latest Revised Ranger. I was just voicing out the concerns that many people have. I don't mind if Favored Enemy would cover each creature type at once, and completely. Then again, I don't mind if it stayed like in PHB, as long as the damage bonus stays. I just want to see a polished, near-final version of it, preferably something ready for public playtest usable in AL perhaps. It's just so much better than the PHB version.

Double slot expenditure might be too punitive. Would higher cost, or smaller nova be the better deal here?
Yeah, double slot expenditure is too punitive. Maybe Pex has a point. It could be a 7th level Oath feature for a new Oath. But, instead of melee Divine Smite, maybe you would have to use 2nd-level slots for 2d8, 3rd-level slots for 3d8, 4th-level slots for 4d8, and finally 5th-level slots for 5d8. Considering how few slots you get from the high end as a pure paladin, it might be reasonable cost for ranged smites. Maybe it could have a once per turn limit as well?

Dragolord

2016-11-30, 05:25 PM

A proper Artificer is at the top of my list. After that? A Scout, maybe a few ToB-esque subclasses, and an exploration of racial substitution levels would be interesting.

GlenSmash!

2016-11-30, 05:50 PM

There was a 2e ranger kit for a Green Ranger that effectively turned into a small treant, had permanent barkskin, could spawn additional limbs, etc... I would really like to see something like that.

I thought the Green Ranger played his knife flute to summon the Dragonzord.

Vogonjeltz

2016-11-30, 08:33 PM

Auramis

2016-11-30, 11:41 PM

Wizard: Truenamer

I had a moment where I paused and just stared at this because I can't tell if it's a joke or a legit desire. Either way, I got a snicker from it.

MasterMercury

2016-11-30, 11:43 PM

A monk that is good at grappling
Drunken Fist
4-elements fix

Arkhios

2016-11-30, 11:57 PM

4-elements fix

I'm having trouble comprehending this desire. What's so wrong about it? Is it broken or is it underpowered by ways I don't see?

Belac93

2016-12-01, 12:02 AM

I'm having trouble comprehending this desire. What's so wrong about it? Is it broken or is it underpowered by ways I don't see?
It looks fine on paper, but in practice, people feel like it can't use it's abilities enough. It doesn't feel like a monk who can use magic, it feels like a monk who gives up a ton of monk-power uses for a tiny bit of magic, which isn't sustainable.

Kane0

2016-12-01, 12:02 AM

It's a costly path to tread. Other than that it's fine.

DrDinocrusher

2016-12-01, 12:09 AM

I'm having trouble comprehending this desire. What's so wrong about it? Is it broken or is it underpowered by ways I don't see?

I think generally folks feel it's too action and ki intensive to really be worthwhile when stacked up against the other monk archetypes. They're 1/3rd casters (technically), but unlike arcane tricksters and eldritch knights they have to eat into all their other class features in order to use their archetype. Some of their iconic abilities like Fangs of the Fire Snake hinder their choice of magic items further even for a monk. Compared to the control and synergy of the open hand and the extreme utility and freedom of shadow it feels like a really restrictive archetype that eats into all the other cool monk stuff you can do like Step of the Wind and Stunning Strike, in exchange for getting pseudo-warlock casting abilities.

I would really love to play a Wot4E monks as I love the imagery but shadow just seems much more entertaining and fun comparatively.

Arkhios

2016-12-01, 12:21 AM

Fair enough, though I doubt they will give monks another magical source than Ki, because Ki is in many ways a source of 'magic' as well. No other classes have two expendable sources to fuel their abilities, so even if a fix occurs, it would have to be tied with Ki somehow. 4 elements' abilities replicate spells (at least some of them) and since ki pool replenishes at short rests it would seem to be a fair trade for the spell replicas.

Edit: I agree it does feel a bit punitive that they only get the elemental ki abilities and nothing else, but if you compare the overall amount of these abilities I think it's equal to the others'.

Foxhound438

2016-12-01, 12:32 AM

I think generally folks feel it's too action and ki intensive to really be worthwhile when stacked up against the other monk archetypes. They're 1/3rd casters (technically), but unlike arcane tricksters and eldritch knights they have to eat into all their other class features in order to use their archetype. Some of their iconic abilities like Fangs of the Fire Snake hinder their choice of magic items further even for a monk. Compared to the control and synergy of the open hand and the extreme utility and freedom of shadow it feels like a really restrictive archetype that eats into all the other cool monk stuff you can do like Step of the Wind and Stunning Strike, in exchange for getting pseudo-warlock casting abilities.

I would really love to play a Wot4E monks as I love the imagery but shadow just seems much more entertaining and fun comparatively.

Pretty much this. No one would pick eldritch knight if they had to give up action surge, second wind, and indomitable to cast their spells. Honestly just a monk with 1/3 casting would have been a lot better.

I've tried out 3 different monk subclasses now (4e, sun, and shadow) and 4e definitely felt like most of the time I just didn't get a subclass. Either I could use the water whip for a decent 1-off boost to damage and have half my ki gone, or I could just save it for flurry, and the latter is just way better since it costs half as much and does about the same damage. Doesn't really get better later on, since at any given point it costs a ton of ki to use your strongest spell, and never does it feel like the price is better than x flurry of blows over a few more rounds. Shadow feels like it gives me a lot of answers to situations I otherwise would be looking to a bard or wizard for help, and sun just feels better in combat since you don't have to use ki to make use of your mainstay feature (which is actually pretty nice, no need for mobile here).

Foxhound438

2016-12-01, 12:38 AM

No other classes have two expendable sources to fuel their abilities

fighter gets spells separate from their action surge, second wind, and indomitable, warlock gets spells separate from mystic arcanum (albeit both cast spells, but recharge on different rests), bard gets spells separate from inspiration, cleric and paladin both get channel separate from spells, most clerics get an x/day ability separate from either, druids get spells separate from wild shape, sorcerer gets spells separate (though tied to) spell points, diviner wizard get portent dice separate from spells. I'm sure there's a few more, but I believe my point is made.

Arkhios

2016-12-01, 12:40 AM

Pretty much this. No one would pick eldritch knight if they had to give up action surge, second wind, and indomitable to cast their spells. Honestly just a monk with 1/3 casting would have been a lot better.

That's a bit unfair in comparison. The issue is with giving up other subclass features, not abilities of the base class.
Four Elements Monk doesn't lose the other base ki abilities that every other monk gets.
A monk with both spellcasting and ki would have two separate resources of magic, and that would be overpowered when compared to other classes. Now, I do understand that Elemental magic eats into same resource as the base abilities. This could be alleviated by giving a few extra Ki points to the Four Elements Monk.

fighter gets spells separate from their action surge, second wind, and indomitable, warlock gets spells separate from mystic arcanum (albeit both cast spells, but recharge on different rests), bard gets spells separate from inspiration, cleric and paladin both get channel separate from spells, most clerics get an x/day ability separate from either, druids get spells separate from wild shape, sorcerer gets spells separate (though tied to) spell points, diviner wizard get portent dice separate from spells. I'm sure there's a few more, but I believe my point is made.

Those all are separate abilities with each other, having their own recharge conditions, but channel divinity, and the rest, are not equal in power with spells. What you're asking for Monk is having spell slots (= resource of spells or spell-like abilities) on top of ki points (= resource of spells or spell-like abilities), effectively same as having spellcasting+pact magic from one class. That's too powerful.

Flashy

2016-12-01, 12:44 AM

Now, I do understand that Elemental magic eats into same resource as the base abilities. This could be alleviated by giving a few extra Ki points to the Four Elements Monk.

Yeah honestly the real problem is mainly that the Elemental abilities are kind of overpriced. A few extra Ki or slightly cheaper abilities fix most of the issues.

DrDinocrusher

2016-12-01, 12:56 AM

That's a bit unfair in comparison. The issue is with giving up other subclass features, not abilities of the base class.
Four Elements Monk doesn't lose the other base ki abilities that every other monk gets.
A monk with both spellcasting and ki would have two separate resources of magic, and that would be overpowered when compared to other classes. Now, I do understand that Elemental magic eats into same resource as the base abilities. This could be alleviated by giving a few extra Ki points to the Four Elements Monk.

I think the easiest fix for them is to treat the subclass as a mixture of bear totem barbarian and warlock. Instead of giving them all this burn ki-to-cast-spells stuff, just let them cast them on a short rest like a warlock, with the spell level equal to 1/3rd their monk level. Something like:

3rd level: Choose one of the elements listed below

Earth: You can cast Earth Tremor once per short rest as a bonus action. You cannot be knocked prone as long as your feet are in contact with the ground.

Fire: You can cast Burning Hands once per short rest as a bonus action. You learn the Light cantrip

Water: You can cast Fog cloud once per short rest as a bonus action. You gain a swim speed of 20ft

Air: you can cast Magic Missile once per short rest as a bonus action. You can jump twice as far as normal.

Those aren't really balanced ideas, but I think it goes a good way to making the archetype feeling more like what it was supposed to feel like. You get both spells and passive abilities related to the elements you choose, and as you level up you get more spells to burn per short rest like a 1/3rd warlock.

Foxhound438

2016-12-01, 12:58 AM

Yeah honestly the real problem is mainly that the Elemental abilities are kind of overpriced. A few extra Ki or slightly cheaper abilities fix most of the issues.

I'd agree to this- EK gets spells and its own unique abilities, giving that subclass twice the value of 4e monk (even more, since EK gets to chose more than 1 spell per spell level). It wouldn't be overpowered to make the 4e monk abilities cost ki=spell level, or at the very least let them have more options to pick.

Arkhios

2016-12-01, 01:03 AM

I think the easiest fix for them is to treat the subclass as a mixture of bear totem barbarian and warlock. Instead of giving them all this burn ki-to-cast-spells stuff, just let them cast them on a short rest like a warlock, with the spell level equal to 1/3rd their monk level. Something like:

3rd level: Choose one of the elements listed below

Earth: You can cast Earth Tremor once per short rest as a bonus action. You cannot be knocked prone as long as your feet are in contact with the ground.

Fire: You can cast Burning Hands once per short rest as a bonus action. You learn the Light cantrip

Water: You can cast Fog cloud once per short rest as a bonus action. You gain a swim speed of 20ft

Air: you can cast Magic Missile once per short rest as a bonus action. You can jump twice as far as normal.

Those aren't really balanced ideas, but I think it goes a good way to making the archetype feeling more like what it was supposed to feel like. You get both spells and passive abilities related to the elements you choose, and as you level up you get more spells to burn per short rest like a 1/3rd warlock.

Essentially that's a good idea.

Ravinsild

2016-12-01, 01:11 AM

Arkhios

2016-12-01, 01:55 AM

I had this book from 4e I forget the name of that had the Blackguard, Vryloka, Revenant and a lot of other cool stuff in there. It was an awesome book and probably my favorite overall. I loved the idea of the "Dark Paladin" that didn't have to be evil and these Undead style PC options that weren't super op. So I guess I hope to see that. The Blackguard or Death Knight or Dark Knight (WoW, FFXIV, whatever) style dark magic caster melee user gish thing.

Weren't those from the online Dragon Magazine? (can't remember the issue number)

Ravinsild

2016-12-01, 02:02 AM

Weren't those from the online Dragon Magazine? (can't remember the issue number)

Possibly! I had a subscription to use all the tools from their online subscription service (RIP Character Generator ;-;). I also had several books. So it could've been a book or an article :P I forget which.

MeeposFire

2016-12-01, 02:28 AM

Arkhios

2016-12-01, 02:51 AM

Consider on ranged smiting that unless you allow it to work retroactively ranged smites would probably have to be called before you know you hit. So unlike in melee you could miss and waste the spell slot. That is a rather nasty limitation on a class with not that many spell slots. I am not sure it fully balances it but that is a major cost.

Remember on eof the best uses for normal smites is that you can save them for when you crit to unload massive damage efficiently. YOu cannot do that if you have to declare before you make the attack roll.

Yeah, that could be part of its limitations. Maybe combined with one spell level higher spell slot costs and only once per turn. With these three limitations, this could actually be balanced.

Would have to figure out a reasonable Channel Divinity as well, to have a ranged oriented feature right from the start when you take the oath. I've got nothing though :(

as for the name it could be Oath of the Hunt (flavored as the Wyld Hunt etc.)

Foxhound438

2016-12-01, 03:15 AM

Would have to figure out a reasonable Channel Divinity as well, to have a ranged oriented feature right from the start when you take the oath. I've got nothing though :(

Maybe some kind of movement ability- a channel divinity "misty step" would help both before getting ranged smite and after, since it could be used to either get in or out of melee range.

Sacred weapon might make a good second channel option, since it can be applied to any weapon, not just melee ones.

Arkhios

2016-12-01, 03:23 AM

Maybe some kind of movement ability- a channel divinity "misty step" would help both before getting ranged smite and after, since it could be used to either get in or out of melee range.

Sacred weapon might make a good second channel option, since it can be applied to any weapon, not just melee ones.

Not sure if it's wise to just copy-paste a feature from another oath. It doesn't really make it feel unique. But something similar might work. Maybe a one time +10 bonus to hit with a ranged attack? (Then again, that's quite similar with War Priest's Channel, albeit more restrictive and might be against general design philosophy)

MrStabby

2016-12-01, 05:09 AM

I don't know whether to be more excited by the prospect of more stuff for the classes i like or for the classes I dont?

Fighter: The class kind of feels a bit generic at the moment. Something new with a real load of character would work well here. I wouldn't mind a subclass that could better make use of mental abilities - say who can use knowledge of anatomy and biomechanics to inflict disabling blows on enemies and benefits from a high Int score.

Monk: This one will be hard. So much of the class power is in the core class not the archetype that any attempt to make a UA on this exciting is likely to end up being a bit OP. I wouldn't mind some kind of Sylvan Guardian style nature themed monk though.

Paladin: An oath of secrets would be cool.

Rogue: This is kind of the one role missing a divine theme. Brawler role has a paladin, caster role has a cleric but the sneaky role doesn't have a divine side. I would like an inquisitor archetype that sneaks about and has divine elements

Sorcerer: I wouldn't mind something like the recent druid wildshape revision but for sorcerer - a new means of generating spell lists. Favoured Soul was OP and gave too many spells but I think new rules that gave more flexibility on sorcerer spells would work well so you could build your own origin/focus/style

Warlock: I want a Kraken pact.

Wizard: I think a wizard has enough at the moment. I wouldn't mind the Theurge getting tightened up to make it less powerful. As it is it is about 7 archetypes in 1 (which I love) and this can make it harder to balance

Addaran

2016-12-01, 05:55 AM

Bugado25

2016-12-01, 06:45 AM

Arkhios

2016-12-01, 06:54 AM

I have a question for the folk that wants a spell-less paladin.

What would it have that could not be acomplished with a fighter with the appropriate background?

And about the spell-less ranger. I think the scout archetype for fighter that came at the Kits of Old UA does a good job achieving that.

Oh, don't be such a party pooper. Spell-less paladin is purely out of curiosity since there have been such variants before, in older editions. At least once before as far as I know. I have no idea what it should or could have, but it might work for a "fallen" paladin that's not an Oathbreaker. Theoretically it could be easier to become without having to retrain your levels into purely another class, with different sub-class feature levels. Stripped away from all spellcasting and whatnot, but otherwise still a paladin with paladin chassis. But, no, I have no idea whatsoever what it'd look like.

Spell-less ranger as was seen in the UA where the Favored Soul was presented was just so interesting idea that it caught my attention for further experimentation. While I admit Scout does remarkable job as a spell-less ranger substitute, it's still a bit too much a Fighter, while the spell-less variant of ranger could still have ranger sub-classes (Beast master, Hunter, and Dark Stalker -- or maybe not Stalker since they get extra spells); ideally, it would only replace spellcasting, nothing else.

TimBobDAnimal

2016-12-01, 07:16 AM

I would really like to see a decent loremaster. It drives me nuts that the best "loremaster" that can built right now cannot leverage their Intelligence very well. You can't even pure class the Knowledge Cleric if you want expertise in all the knowledge skills! How hard is it to build a loremaster wizard subclass? It would give a nice "generalist" that many people are craving and its the only class where having a good intelligence (16+) is the norm.

Giving the class a special lore check (similar to the bardic lore of old), expanded languages, expertise in the knowledge skills and a combat boost based on knowledge checks would suffice for me.

Bugado25

2016-12-01, 07:19 AM

Arkhios

2016-12-01, 07:39 AM

Being a party pooper is not my intention. The reason i made my comment is because i don't see what a spell-less paladin could be other than a fighter. The only non magical abilities the paladin gains are extra attack and fighting style. So if you want to remove all magic you would need another class.

The ranger is easier. Most of the abilities can work without any magic. IMHO there is nothing on hunter's archetypes theme that can not be achieved by the scout fighter so the only problem here would be a beastmaster without spells.

Okay, maybe not all magical abilities for the paladin, but spellcasting (and divine smite since it's directly related to having spell slots) removed in place of something else. I admit it might not happen, but you never know what they come up with. Even us "amateurs" on these forums can come up with all sorts of marvelous ideas, so...who knows?

From this thought I had an idea for an "oathless" paladin. Instead of Channel Divinity, Oath Spells, 7th level, 15th level, and 20th level features the paladin could get something with a more martial bent. Maybe even as "dull" as limited Combat Superiority (I'd be fine without that one maneuver that lets you add extra damage to your hit, since a paladin can do that already quite effectively).

The UA spell-less ranger did have a solution specifically for Beast Master. I'd be interested to see how would it work, conceptually, on the Revised Ranger chassis, as quite a bit has changed.

Bugado25

2016-12-01, 08:19 AM

So the main thing you want would be an oathless paladin that is not evil?
I can see WotC doing that.

But if you want to remove all spells slots and divine smite the only things that stays are a bunch of auras, lay on hands and some ribbons. Those things could fit a single fighter archetype. Maybe a nerfed lay on hands at 3rd + something new (maybe a channel divinity). At 7th it could be Aura of protection. But i think that would be to early so i would keep aura of protection for 10th and add another new thing here. At 15th aura of courage and as capstone at 18th another new stuff.

I don't see why they would make a paladin that does not get any spell slots but keep all other magical abilities. If you want to remove magic remove it all.

MrStabby

2016-12-01, 08:21 AM

I think it would be better to build the character as a fighter and swap in the paladin elements you want as archetype features.

Joe the Rat

2016-12-01, 09:00 AM

Spell-less, smiteless (or smite-lite) martial paladin? Fighter Base. Immunites, healing hands, smite pool (pick some) at 3, Protection Aura kicks in at 7, etc.
Spell-lite, smiting martial paladin? Paladin base.

Nerdynick

2016-12-01, 09:33 AM

As someone mentioned above, an arcane variant on the paladin could be really cool. Mix up the spell list or something.

I also want to see the Heroes of Horror Archivist class brought back. On the remaining classes it makes the most sense on wizard, I'd argue.

As the shadow weave is kinda a thing in the Realms, I'd also expect to see that in Wizard.

Belac93

2016-12-01, 09:56 AM

I had this book from 4e I forget the name of that had the Blackguard, Vryloka, Revenant and a lot of other cool stuff in there. It was an awesome book and probably my favorite overall. I loved the idea of the "Dark Paladin" that didn't have to be evil and these Undead style PC options that weren't super op. So I guess I hope to see that. The Blackguard or Death Knight or Dark Knight (WoW, FFXIV, whatever) style dark magic caster melee user gish thing.

Blackguard and Vryloka were from Heroes of Shadow, and I think Revenant was there too (although it was also in dragon magazine). It had things like Shades, and the first necromancer for 4th edition. It was a pretty great book.

Ravinsild

2016-12-01, 10:06 AM

Ravinsild

2016-12-01, 10:11 AM

Blackguard and Vryloka were from Heroes of Shadow, and I think Revenant was there too (although it was also in dragon magazine). It had things like Shades, and the first necromancer for 4th edition. It was a pretty great book.

Agreed! I can't find my copy anywhere though since I moved which is bumming me out. It was my favorite 4e book. I think 4e was my favorite edition but if 5e gets all the races and support material 4e did 5e might replace it. It's a simpler to use.

Edit: I also hope to see the Invoker made into a subclass for Wizard. Basically a Divine Wizard that's like a ranged Paladin smiting foes with holy magic and bolstering allies. A buffer/debuffer/nuker type idea. Pretty much a Priest I guess :)

DracoKnight

2016-12-01, 10:20 AM

Super Scholar whose unlimited knowledge creates unlimited power! He has studied you and knows your every weakness able to expertly exploit it to your demise.

Yeah a Loremaster would be super cool. -adjusts glasses-

Like L, or Light Yagami :smallbiggrin: Except that the Loremaster would know EVERYTHING!!!

MinotaurWarrior

2016-12-01, 10:35 AM

Fighter:

Warlord
Kensai
Something that does Enkidu-style truly exceptional things, without it being magic.

Monk:

Grappler monk
A monk that directly focuses on mobility
Zen archer

Paladin:

A more secular "Oath of the Vassal" themed around humanoids
An anti-caster "Oath of the Witchunter"
An aberration themed oath

Rogue:

BM-Style tricks
Inquisitor 1/3rd divine caster focused on divination & conjuration
Bounty hunter, focused on traps

Ranger:

Feywild-themed ranger
Groundskeeper, focused more on the pro-humanity side of maintaining the balance between man & nature
A more druidy ranger, with expanded preternatural abilities akin to primeval awareness.

Sorcerer:

Feyblood
Aberrant
Self-made. Not a scholar, but someone who directly worked to turn normal charisma into supernatural force of personality.

Warlock:

Pact of the Artificer boon
Pactbreaker Patron
Genie elemental Patrons

Wizard:

Generalist
Scholarch
Path towards lichdom

Fishybugs

2016-12-01, 10:53 AM

I'd like to see the Mystic class gotten rid of completely and turned into subclasses. A fighter who has some psionic advantages from the subclass, like limited precognition, just enough that it gives them a slight advantage in battle. A rogue who can 'see' the tumblers on a lock and gets a small bonus on picking it...that sort of thing.

Auramis

2016-12-01, 01:10 PM

jaappleton

2016-12-01, 01:27 PM

Here's what is left at the time of writing this:

Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

I'm assuming some form of the Mystic will be shown as well.

First, I want NOTHING with Superiority Dice. I've seen too many archetypes, especially UA, get them. I don't want it to be a lazy crutch for the design team.

Fighter - Arcane Archer. I know EK kinda works, but I want another take on it.
Monk - A new take on 4 Elements
Paladin - Oath of the Arcane, a magic oriented Paladin.
Ranger - I like the Revised one from a few months back, but I'd like to see Hunter and Beast get bonus spells like Stalker
Rogue - Brutal Scoundrel, I want a Strength based rogue archetype
Sorcerer - I'm struggling to come up with something, really. No idea.
Warlock - I'd like to see new Pacts and Evocations more than I'd like to see any new Patrons.
Wizard - I don't like Wizards, so meh (Good archetypes, great spell list, just not for me)

Two things I'm DESPERATE to see:

Artificer as its own class, and a new take on the Avenger from 4E. I know there's the Vengeance Paladin, but it's not the same. I'm thinking of something like a short rest spellcaster like the Warlock, but half caster progression.

N810

2016-12-01, 01:33 PM

Perhaps a rogue class based on thrown weapons ?

Fishybugs

2016-12-01, 01:55 PM

My response to what a spell-less paladin might look like is just a paladin without spells. Find another fuel for smite or retune it, keep the rest of the paladin's kit. That would still offer oath features, Divine Health, Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, Cleansing Touch, Auras, etc. There's a lot of support themed options with paladin outside of it spells the fighter doesn't support as readily.

That said, this may be better explored as a fighter option rather than a paladin one, like my desire to see a Knight archetype for fighters. That could maybe offer a similar option.

It sounds to me like you want Backgrounds. A spell-less Paladin is a Fighter with the Knight background...just a role-playing option.

I hope they don't come out with as much as it seems they plan to. I have enjoyed the simplicity of this edition. After a break from playing for several years, the excessive amounts of options are overwhelming when getting back into the game and discouraged me from rejoining 3.x or 4.0.

Arkhios

2016-12-01, 02:09 PM

It sounds to me like you want Backgrounds. A spell-less Paladin is a Fighter with the Knight background...just a role-playing option.

I hope they don't come out with as much as it seems they plan to. I have enjoyed the simplicity of this edition. After a break from playing for several years, the excessive amounts of options are overwhelming when getting back into the game and discouraged me from rejoining 3.x or 4.0.

You can always choose to not use anything outside PHB+maybe Death Domain and Oathbreaker.

Kadzar

2016-12-01, 02:21 PM

As someone mentioned above, an arcane variant on the paladin could be really cool. Mix up the spell list or something.
While I really like the idea of an arcane half-caster, I'd personally prefer that it wasn't based on the paladin.

jaappleton

2016-12-01, 02:28 PM

While I really like the idea of an arcane half-caster, I'd personally prefer that it wasn't based on the paladin.

Sounds like the potential framework for a Swordmage.

Princess

2016-12-01, 02:37 PM

A Paladin oath that was focused on investigation and supplemental skills might be hard to work into the current approach to Oaths, but no one would expect the Oath of Inquisition, and it would be gloriously entertaining.

Foxhound438

2016-12-01, 03:06 PM

Not sure if it's wise to just copy-paste a feature from another oath. It doesn't really make it feel unique. But something similar might work. Maybe a one time +10 bonus to hit with a ranged attack? (Then again, that's quite similar with War Priest's Channel, albeit more restrictive and might be against general design philosophy)

I mean, cleric ripped blessed healer wholesale from life cleric, so I'd say it's pretty much fair game. The big issue would be that you'd have to make the rest of the abilities different enough to make the two oaths distinct in feel without making the new one just a "strictly better" devotion pally. That said, the sacred weapon is pretty much the only standout thing about the devotion pal, so it may be near impossible to pull off.

Auramis

2016-12-01, 03:53 PM

It sounds to me like you want Backgrounds. A spell-less Paladin is a Fighter with the Knight background...just a role-playing option.

I hope they don't come out with as much as it seems they plan to. I have enjoyed the simplicity of this edition. After a break from playing for several years, the excessive amounts of options are overwhelming when getting back into the game and discouraged me from rejoining 3.x or 4.0.

You may have to elaborate how a fighter with a knight background would offer the supernatural/spell-like abilities I described a moment prior, because I see no correlation between having a few servants and playing a fighter equates to a paladin's abilities.

Anderlith

2016-12-01, 05:56 PM

Fighter- Armor or shield focused. Not so much about defending others as just being an untouchable juggernaut. Perhaps a fighter that can adapt to enemies weaknesses & protect against their strengths.
Monk- Kensai belongs with the monk not as a fighter. Let them burn ki for cool attacks.
Paladin- I really want a Knight of Bones. Something flavored a lot like the ones from Eberron. & a roguish paladin for those that live in evil areas & cannot waltz around in shining armor. A sun/pelor based paladin who is all about light & burning away evil.
Rogue- Fae flavored rogue who steals things like the color of your hair & such. Trapsmith would be okay, or rogue that is focused on melee, like a "Battledancer" that is more martially inclined & not so much skill based
Ranger- a Conclave of the Worldwalkers, rangers who are all about mobility & travel, who guard those that walk in dangerous lands.
Sorcerer- arcane blooded, elemental, demon, boreal, celestial, & fate would all be cool.
Warlock- Dragon Pact. Need it. Also a good guy pact. Almost like a paladin oath. Path of Transformation (Path of the Mirror). A way for warlocks to get natural attacks & armor that reflects their pact. Demon like transformations of power, or fey like grace & beauty. Dragon claws. Etc. Nothing that is Pact specific. Just general enhancements that aren't hard to make sense. Extra AC could be demon hide or dragon, or fae glamour throwing off an attack as an example.
Wizard- Artificer, even though I think it would be best as a separate class. Planes wizard I feel like the wizards ability to interact with the planes goes overlooked a lot. War wizard, somewhere between evocation & abjuration & spellsinger hopefully not melee based. Lore wizards in the vein of knowing everything.

MrStabby

2016-12-01, 06:12 PM

Fighter:

Paladin:

An anti-caster "Oath of the Witchunter"

Rogue:

BM-Style tricks
Inquisitor 1/3rd divine caster focused on divination & conjuration
Bounty hunter, focused on traps

Ranger:

Feywild-themed ranger
Groundskeeper, focused more on the pro-humanity side of maintaining the balance between man & nature
A more druidy ranger, with expanded preternatural abilities akin to primeval awareness.

I can't get behind many of your suggestions but the ones I kept above appeal to me.

A bounty hunter focused on traps would be good. To be honest I am not sure I would want this in the rogue simply because i would like the traps to be a core mechanic and bolting that onto the rogue chassis might be a bit OP. As a garnish it isn't bad but as it would probably not interact well with the action economy (unless you had to use an action, bonus action, reaction to trigger a trap) it might be hard to implement. I also feel it would need to be at least a half caster to get glyph effects - it would suck to be a trap themed class and the party wizard can do your thing better than you can.

Your ranger suggestions are where you really float my boat. Fey/feywild themed ranger? Much of the others i have homebrewed stuff for but this is something I didn't think of. It has style and grace and can open up the ranger role a bit. There is a role for an enchanter/illusionist nature themed casting support on a warrior.

A groundskeeper ranger. I am always up for more plant themed characters and a ranger with more support for managing walls of vines, entangling growth etc. would be fantastic. A shift away from animals to plants could open up some more options. The challenge is that much of the animal and wild themed elements are baked into the core class so differentiating could be hard.

A more druidy ranger would work for me as well. Maybe with lycanthropic forms that provided different boosts as a version of shapechange? Or maybe even the archetype bonuses giving more casting prowess. If at 3rd, 7th, 11th and 15th levels you got to add a druid spell to your prepared list every day and counted your spellcasting level as being a level higher it would probably be reasonable.

Theodoric

2016-12-01, 07:09 PM

Warlord-y fighter's about the only thing on my list. Maybe a redone Favoured Soul. The last one was okay in concept (works really well as a Sorcerer subtype) but needed some work.

Reading this thread Elemental-based patrons would be an interesting addition to the Warlock. Though a new type of Pact would be nice too.

DragonSorcererX

2016-12-01, 07:58 PM

Classes/Archetypes

Cleric: Winter/Cold/Ice Domain.

Sorcerer: Simple Generic Arcane Heritage, Cold/Ice Paraelemental Heritage and a Caster-y Favored Soul.

Mystic: all the "Core" Psionic Classes from 3.5 and an effective Psionic Healer.

Wilder (Because Wizard has Sorcerer).

Artificer.

Fighter: EK-like Dragon Sorcerer-Fighter Hybrid (maybe Dragonborn Exclusive).

Warlock: More Patrons (the Cosmos is filled with all sorts of powerful outsiders).

More Dragon Anything.

Races/Sub-Races

A better Abyssal Tiefling

Thri-kreen

"Shadowfell People"

Kalashtar

Feats

Energy Substitution

Rules Expansion

Actual Epic Levels

There is probably more stuff that I didn't remember...

Vogonjeltz

2016-12-01, 08:17 PM

Yeah honestly the real problem is mainly that the Elemental abilities are kind of overpriced. A few extra Ki or slightly cheaper abilities fix most of the issues.

That's not true, the abilities are already more ki efficient than the alternatives, and the AoE is astoundingly so when used against 2+ targets.

It's an incrementally higher number, but you're getting way more bang for your buck.

MinotaurWarrior

2016-12-01, 10:44 PM

I can't get behind many of your suggestions but the ones I kept above appeal to me.

A bounty hunter focused on traps would be good. To be honest I am not sure I would want this in the rogue simply because i would like the traps to be a core mechanic and bolting that onto the rogue chassis might be a bit OP. As a garnish it isn't bad but as it would probably not interact well with the action economy (unless you had to use an action, bonus action, reaction to trigger a trap) it might be hard to implement. I also feel it would need to be at least a half caster to get glyph effects - it would suck to be a trap themed class and the party wizard can do your thing better than you can.

I mean, caster job stealing is always a problem. But Expertise (stealth) makes rogues good at getting in place to set up traps, and I think there's got to be an elegant way to use rogue resources to fuel them. E.g. let traps use up your 1/turn sneak attack damage.

Your ranger suggestions are where you really float my boat. Fey/feywild themed ranger? Much of the others i have homebrewed stuff for but this is something I didn't think of. It has style and grace and can open up the ranger role a bit. There is a role for an enchanter/illusionist nature themed casting support on a warrior.

I also happen to think this is the archetype we're most likely to get.

A groundskeeper ranger. I am always up for more plant themed characters and a ranger with more support for managing walls of vines, entangling growth etc. would be fantastic. A shift away from animals to plants could open up some more options. The challenge is that much of the animal and wild themed elements are baked into the core class so differentiating could be hard.

The base ranger really isn't that animal themed.

A more druidy ranger would work for me as well. Maybe with lycanthropic forms that provided different boosts as a version of shapechange? Or maybe even the archetype bonuses giving more casting prowess. If at 3rd, 7th, 11th and 15th levels you got to add a druid spell to your prepared list every day and counted your spellcasting level as being a level higher it would probably be reasonable.

I think becoming a 3/4 spellcaster would be too much, but something like arcane recovery could work, as would cantrips and a limited wildshape.

MrStabby

2016-12-02, 04:21 AM

I mean, caster job stealing is always a problem. But Expertise (stealth) makes rogues good at getting in place to set up traps, and I think there's got to be an elegant way to use rogue resources to fuel them. E.g. let traps use up your 1/turn sneak attack damage.

Could a trapper sit on the monk chassis? Just thinking they have Ki points, a resource that could be used to create/activate traps. This has the downside that the core monk can do a number of things that the traps might be able to do anyway so less fruitful. At least the rogue gets a bonus action ability before the archetype so if some traps used a bonus action there is something being sacrificed.

I think becoming a 3/4 spellcaster would be too much, but something like arcane recovery could work, as would cantrips and a limited wildshape.

I thought 3/4 spellcaster would be the safer issue - in fact I thought it underpowered. Bard and warlock would both be getting two attacks and with better caster progression - with the archetype boosts to casting the ranger would basically have a fighting style and little more HP than a valor bard or a bladelock - not quite enough I felt to compensate for the lesser casting.

Arkhios

2016-12-02, 04:33 AM

To be honest I wouldn't want to see a 3/4 caster in this game at all. It's a step too far towards unnecessary complexity.

Steampunkette

2016-12-02, 05:49 AM

Fighter: Going in on Warlords for more support. But I'd also like to see a fighter type that plays at roguishness. Whether it's a Thug or something similar, I'd love to see a fighter with a few dice of sneak attack. I'd also love to see a Versatile Weapon specialist subclass. Someone who takes a Longsword and makes it their own, perhaps using different "Stances" which give different benefits based on whether you're one-handing or two-handing a given versatile weapon.

Monk: I'd kind of like to see a Monkadin. A divine avenger who wields monk weapons and empowers them with holy might and has a few spells that aren't attack-based. Some healing or party-buffing would be great.

Mystic: I want Psionic Warriors to be their own thing. I'd also like to see a really nicely done Telekineticist who rearranges battlefields, possible including destroying difficult terrain that already exists, or moving it around.

Paladin: I'd love to see both the Archer type that has been mentioned, repeatedly, up-thread, but also a paladin who relies on Ancestors rather than nature or order. A paladin that would fit in well among Viking-Styled characters calling up the spirits of their forebears to fight alongside them, or in an Oriental Adventures campaign for a similar reason.

Ranger: Urban Rangers are cool, but I'd really like to see a full on Sniper. Ranged sneak attacks while hidden, lots of stealth-movement options, possibly a shadow-teleport when unobserved... Arcane Archers would also be very sweet.

Rogue: Shadowdancers. Teleporting knife-wielding sneak attacking masters of darkness. Pathfinder Style Inquisitors: A Divine-casting Rogue with extra attack, maybe?

Sorceror: Can we get a Wild Mage revamp, pretty please? I'd like for the wild mage to feel powerful as well as random. I'd also like to see the "Roll for Wild Surge" taken out of the hands of the DM since in a campaign where the DM forgets you might as well not HAVE most of your subclass abilities.

Warlock: I'd love to see a Debuffing Warlock. A warlock who curses enemies and uses the evil eye. I'd also love to see a Martial Warlock which switches the flavor up by swearing to a power for the ability to be a magically enhanced battler. Gishier! I'd also love to see an Arcane Archer build using the Warlock Chassis.

Wizard: Chronomancers. Please. I need to push people through time, again.

DragonSorcererX

2016-12-02, 01:39 PM

Mystic: I want Psionic Warriors to be their own thing. I'd also like to see a really nicely done Telekineticist who rearranges battlefields, possible including destroying difficult terrain that already exists, or moving it around.

Did you meant "Psychic Warriors"? I would see them being some sort of Psionic EK, In 3.5 they even had one third of the total PP of the Psions, like the EK has one third of Spell Points (If you use that variant rule, and the Mystic sort of uses for its PP score) of a Full Caster...

thepsyker

2016-12-02, 02:02 PM

Fighter: I'd also love to see a Versatile Weapon specialist subclass. Someone who takes a Longsword and makes it their own, perhaps using different "Stances" which give different benefits based on whether you're one-handing or two-handing a given versatile weapon.

Ooh, this. Even if not as a sub-class, but as a fighting style that would capture that style of switching between attacking with the longsword two-handed and attacking one-handed that you see in lots of fantasy movies/tv shows. I don't know if that would work better as a standalone style or as a one-handed style that could be synergized with the existing two-handed style, but it is definitely a currently unfilled niche that pops up in a lot of fantasy fiction.

MinotaurWarrior

2016-12-02, 03:22 PM

Could a trapper sit on the monk chassis? Just thinking they have Ki points, a resource that could be used to create/activate traps. This has the downside that the core monk can do a number of things that the traps might be able to do anyway so less fruitful. At least the rogue gets a bonus action ability before the archetype so if some traps used a bonus action there is something being sacrificed.

I see what you're saying about the ki point model, but I just don't think that the theme works or leads to interesting characters.

I thought 3/4 spellcaster would be the safer issue - in fact I thought it underpowered. Bard and warlock would both be getting two attacks and with better caster progression - with the archetype boosts to casting the ranger would basically have a fighting style and little more HP than a valor bard or a bladelock - not quite enough I felt to compensate for the lesser casting.

Rangers have medium armor, shields, martial weapons, fighting styles and Favored / Greater favored enemy as core combat features above and beyond the warlock, and fighting styles plus Favored enemy / Greater favored enemy over the bard. I think it's easier to bring them in line with more normal class features, rather than spells. Especially since a fair number of ranger-specific spells are disguised class features that break parity with other classes if you get them early.

Fighter: I'd also love to see a Versatile Weapon specialist subclass. Someone who takes a Longsword and makes it their own, perhaps using different "Stances" which give different benefits based on whether you're one-handing or two-handing a given versatile weapon.

Like the stances, don't love the idea of tying it to a particular weapon. A mode-based fighter would be very nice.

Paladin: I'd love to see both the Archer type that has been mentioned, repeatedly, up-thread, but also a paladin who relies on Ancestors rather than nature or order. A paladin that would fit in well among Viking-Styled characters calling up the spirits of their forebears to fight alongside them, or in an Oriental Adventures campaign for a similar reason.

Oath of the Ancestors sounds like another great Oath for a more mortal-centric paladin. Also, in FR at least this would be very cool for many types of monstrous humanoids as an evil paladin variant that isn't all "muahaha look at how evil I am." Grognar son of Rigrak smite puny humans, prove strength, earn place by father's side in (Grumuush / Huggrek / whoever's) army.

Sorceror: Can we get a Wild Mage revamp, pretty please? I'd like for the wild mage to feel powerful as well as random. I'd also like to see the "Roll for Wild Surge" taken out of the hands of the DM since in a campaign where the DM forgets you might as well not HAVE most of your subclass abilities.

Wild mages are already very powerful... if your DM has you roll. All we need is one line bringing wild magic under PC control.

Anderlith

2016-12-02, 06:58 PM

Any Arcane archer should be based on the Fighter, EK variant. I would fit better than any other class.

Steampunkette

2016-12-03, 03:47 AM

Like the stances, don't love the idea of tying it to a particular weapon. A mode-based fighter would be very nice.
What if instead of tying it to a specific weapon they have different weapon uses (One handed versus two handed) grant different benefits during the stance? Like Shifting Sands stance giving 10ft of movement after opportunity attacks that doesn't provoke if you're one-handing and if you're two-handing a weapon you gain some other ability that fits this made-up concept I just invented. That way a Great Weapon Fighter or a Duelist benefits from it, but a Versatile wielder gets to use both bonuses as she sees fit?

Oath of the Ancestors sounds like another great Oath for a more mortal-centric paladin. Also, in FR at least this would be very cool for many types of monstrous humanoids as an evil paladin variant that isn't all "muahaha look at how evil I am." Grognar son of Rigrak smite puny humans, prove strength, earn place by father's side in (Grumuush / Huggrek / whoever's) army.
Right?!

Wild mages are already very powerful... if your DM has you roll. All we need is one line bringing wild magic under PC control.
More or less I'd agree with that, sure. Though where the Dragon Sorc gets natural armor and flight, Wilds get the ability to reroll once in a while. Much less cool.

Though getting a free fireball is nice, sometimes.

Plaguescarred

2016-12-03, 05:25 AM

I'd like to see more Warlord options for Fighter

Something for the Rogue too not sure what.

MasterMercury

2016-12-03, 05:19 PM

Maybe an alternative for fallen Paladins? Like, Oath of the Penetint or something.

DragonSorcererX

2016-12-03, 06:20 PM

Though getting a free fireball is nice, sometimes.

Can you apply Metamagic to that Fireball? If not you are simply blowing yourself the wrong way.

Ravinsild

2016-12-03, 09:08 PM

I thought of something else but it might be OP so it's probably not going to appear in the UA.

So Paladin as before: Blackguard

and Ranger: Revised Beast Master finalized with some ability or spell or animal handling like bonus or something to get Large animal companions or stronger animal companions or expand the types to Fey and Dragon so you could have a baby dragon animal companion or something exotic and neat. Pretty much. Just like "My animal companion is a T-rex. His name is buddy" but again that could be broken. Just a wishlist item to have a more "WoW style I have more beast selections than anyone I'm special this is my class thing" sort of flavor.

Basically "Class Fantasy" for each subclass archetype thing :)

DragonSorcererX

2016-12-03, 10:01 PM

Ravinsild

2016-12-03, 10:03 PM

Yes, we need more draconic stuff, like those three books that gave 3.X a draconic overhaul!

Well not just Dragons. I mean could have a blink dog companion or a displacer beast or something like that. Just more exotic and weird animals :P

JumboWheat01

2016-12-04, 02:54 PM

Like many, I would love to see a Drunken Master Monk.

While there's nothing stopping it for the other archetypes, I would love to see a more ranged-focus Rogue archetype. Something focusing on bows or crossbows.

And I would love to see some more patrons for Warlocks and pact boons for them to play with. Though I admit, I'm at a loss as to what other pact boons can be, as Chain, Blade and Tome cover quite a lot of variety already. Star Chain was an attempt, but it strikes me as a little... odd.

Arkhios

2016-12-04, 04:03 PM

I would actually love to see the return of certain weapons, especially double-weapons (Valenar Double Scimitar would be nice, for example). Since fighters are all about weapons, it would make sense if the article tomorrow would include some weapons.

Sigreid

2016-12-04, 05:32 PM

Warlord keeps coming up. What is it in Warlord that people are missing?

rooneg

2016-12-04, 05:51 PM

Warlord keeps coming up. What is it in Warlord that people are missing?

Most of the warlord type stuff that exists outside the bard doesn't kick in (in any significant way) until higher level. If the concept of the archetype isn't there in tier one play then it doesn't really count IMO.

druid91

2016-12-04, 06:35 PM

A Mystic that is not a variation between horribly overpowered and all but completely useless.

Preferably with a third Order based around Telekinesis.

Ugganaut

2016-12-04, 06:48 PM

Nothing new by the looks.

Fighter: Hexblade, Psychic Warrior if they insist on leaving Immortal as is.
Rogue: Soulknife (I've tried to homebrew, but something official would be nice), Dagger Master
Ranger: Arcane Archer, Spell-less
Sorcerer: A divine origin, revised Favored Soul.
Mystic: Next version. renamed Psion. Immortal renamed Psychic Warrior unless its a fighter subclass. Plus some telekinetic and teleportation stuff like the old days.
Warlock: More invocations, more non-evil patrons.

Belac93

2016-12-04, 08:33 PM

A Mystic that is not a variation between horribly overpowered and all but completely useless.

Preferably with a third Order based around Telekinesis.

They said that they were going to have 2 orders not in the game already, one is the soulknife, and the other is a telekinesis order.

Sigreid

2016-12-04, 09:04 PM

Most of the warlord type stuff that exists outside the bard doesn't kick in (in any significant way) until higher level. If the concept of the archetype isn't there in tier one play then it doesn't really count IMO.

Whether that's the case or not it does seem to be a recurring theme among a very vocal subset of the forum. I'm curious what they're on about. :smallsmile:

rooneg

2016-12-04, 09:14 PM

Whether that's the case or not it does seem to be a recurring theme among a very vocal subset of the forum. I'm curious what they're on about. :smallsmile:

Mostly just (as far as I can tell, I never played 4e) that they'd like a way to represent the non-magical character who makes everyone else better archetype. Right now you can be a valor bard (magical, and has baggage that some people don't like because it's a bard) or a battle master fighter (oh great, I get to pick the worst of the maneuvers, and once I have they don't make me much of a warlord) or a purple dragon knight (level 3: bad healing 1/short rest, level 10: give your allies extra attacks 1/short rest, level 15: better saves a few times/short rest, level 18: level 10 ability gets better, wow, none of these are very good, and almost all of them take forever to happen).

Really the issue is that so much of the fighter's power is tied up in the base class abilities, so the archetype's stuff can't be super strong or it's unbalancing. If you want a real warlord that isn't magical you need a whole new class, and since the warlord is so polarizing it seems unlikely that we'll see it.

DragonSorcererX

2016-12-04, 09:28 PM

Mostly just (as far as I can tell, I never played 4e) that they'd like a way to represent the non-magical character who makes everyone else better archetype. Right now you can be a valor bard (magical, and has baggage that some people don't like because it's a bard) or a battle master fighter (oh great, I get to pick the worst of the maneuvers, and once I have they don't make me much of a warlord) or a purple dragon knight (level 3: bad healing 1/short rest, level 10: give your allies extra attacks 1/short rest, level 15: better saves a few times/short rest, level 18: level 10 ability gets better, wow, none of these are very good, and almost all of them take forever to happen).

Really the issue is that so much of the fighter's power is tied up in the base class abilities, so the archetype's stuff can't be super strong or it's unbalancing. If you want a real warlord that isn't magical you need a whole new class, and since the warlord is so polarizing it seems unlikely that we'll see it.

I think that a Warlord would be similar to a mix of War Cleric and Bard, except that everything he does is mundane, would be cool if he had some kind of "Inspirational Implement" like a War Horn. When I think Warlord the first thing that comes to my mind is Theoden from LotR.

MeeposFire

2016-12-04, 10:10 PM

Warlord keeps coming up. What is it in Warlord that people are missing?

Honestly I loved the warlord many of the best parts make not as much sense in your typical 5e game. For instance one of the best parts of the old warlord was the ability to move all your allies around like chess pieces and have them all attack your chosen targets (usually with a bunch of bonuses and a lot of time you had combat advantage too due to flanking). Considering the emphasis on theater of the mind and the lack of bonuses combined with all the attacks off your turn tending to require reactions rather than free actions like in 4e much of the warlords best stuff is hard to pull off without being willing to change course on many things. Also martial healing seems to bother a number of people (many times it is the same people that really dislike the abstract nature of HP being taken to its logical conclusion or really do like to think of them as only physical wounds).

The battlemaster has essentially all the aspects of the warlord to a basic degree just not in the amount or in the power that the warlord brought to the table with the consideration that we are not using high tactical based combat on a play mat (you can play 4e without a map and minis but you lose a lot of the fun and it is harder).

Kane0

2016-12-04, 10:18 PM

Different but still doable. One could even bring in mechanics not used yet like allowing people to spend hit dice without short resting to address the 'martial healing' thing.

MeeposFire

2016-12-04, 10:20 PM

Different but still doable. One could even bring in mechanics not used yet like allowing people to spend hit dice without short resting to address the 'martial healing' thing.

Oh it is doable that is not the problem. The problem is whether they believe that such a thin will be widely accepted. I really liked playing 4e so for me no problem. Others may not.

Llama513

2016-12-04, 10:42 PM

I would really love to see a drunken master monk tradition, and a reworked Way of the Four Elements so that it is actually usable, for something besides just a story driven purpose, as it stands right now it is not good and sits far below the other monk archetypes.

A full mystic would be really cool, as well as possibly some more prestige class options.

druid91

2016-12-04, 10:44 PM

They said that they were going to have 2 orders not in the game already, one is the soulknife, and the other is a telekinesis order.

Eh.... not really thrilled with the soulknife.

We have two classes already that fulfill the whole "Summon weapons." thing.

Sigreid

2016-12-05, 12:09 AM

Honestly I loved the warlord many of the best parts make not as much sense in your typical 5e game. For instance one of the best parts of the old warlord was the ability to move all your allies around like chess pieces and have them all attack your chosen targets (usually with a bunch of bonuses and a lot of time you had combat advantage too due to flanking). Considering the emphasis on theater of the mind and the lack of bonuses combined with all the attacks off your turn tending to require reactions rather than free actions like in 4e much of the warlords best stuff is hard to pull off without being willing to change course on many things. Also martial healing seems to bother a number of people (many times it is the same people that really dislike the abstract nature of HP being taken to its logical conclusion or really do like to think of them as only physical wounds).

The battlemaster has essentially all the aspects of the warlord to a basic degree just not in the amount or in the power that the warlord brought to the table with the consideration that we are not using high tactical based combat on a play mat (you can play 4e without a map and minis but you lose a lot of the fun and it is harder).

Thanks for the answer. It appears that Warlord is a good chunk of what I hope they never put back into the game. Namely reducing tactics to a system of abilities rather than actually having to work it out.

MeeposFire

2016-12-05, 12:15 AM

Thanks for the answer. It appears that Warlord is a good chunk of what I hope they never put back into the game. Namely reducing tactics to a system of abilities rather than actually having to work it out.

Well more like the warlord allowed a player to be able to do tactics on a macro scale. Normally you can only do one character but a warlord can essentially allow one player to play tactics with a group at a time. It can be a lot of fun lining yourself up for a flank, make an attack, and then call out to three of your friends to charge the enemy using one action. It allowed you to do something that previously did not work well which is making a commander that can actually affect the battlefield in tangible ways.

Kane0

2016-12-05, 02:01 AM

It was also a fantastic class for people that like playing but dont want to bother with combat (cause theyre more RPey, they dont like combat, are there for the social aspect, whatever).
The lazylord could sacrifice their turns and actions to give other players more, so you can contribute effectively without actually doing much.
Which is a lovely alternative to the beatstick fighter.

Kobard

2016-12-05, 05:31 AM

Warlord keeps coming up. What is it in Warlord that people are missing?Generally, it's that people don't want something as offensively-heavy as the fighter class chassis but also don't necessarily want a spellcaster (e.g. bard, cleric) for a more support-oriented role. From what I gather, a big appeal of the warlord was that it empowered a previously (relatively non-existent) martial support niche, particularly on a tactical level, for people who did not want to be full-on fighters, magical music makers, or priests. And a lot of the resistance against the warlord most often comes from what Meepos describes, as well as anti-4E people who see the Warlord as emblematic of 4E.

MrStabby

2016-12-05, 06:45 AM

I think warlord is pretty much the last thing I wan't to see added to the game. A PC RPing commanding, instructing or teaching other PCs? No thanks.

Spellbreaker26

2016-12-05, 08:22 AM

Don't we already have Purple Dragon Knight? I thought that was the 5e Warlord?

rooneg

2016-12-05, 08:34 AM

Don't we already have Purple Dragon Knight? I thought that was the 5e Warlord?

Sure, but it's kind of a crappy warlord. Most of it's abilities show up late in the game, and a lot of it's power is tied up in the core fighter abilities like extra attacks, so there's a limit to how much the warlord specific stuff can really do. IMO you really need a whole new class to do the warlord justice, not just a fighter archetype.

Socratov

2016-12-05, 08:56 AM

Foxydono

2016-12-05, 09:12 AM

Socratov

2016-12-05, 09:15 AM

I would like to see a rogue archetype with a more robust feel to it. So more fighter/barbarian front-line oriented, but still with a rogue touch to it. Something that would complement a barb/fighter rogue multiclass. A thug could be an example, but I would like to see some utility as well to compliment the up front fighting style.

Wouldn't that be better served by a Battlemaster fighter with the criminal background where his manuevers are the ways he cheats when fighting

MrStabby

2016-12-05, 09:54 AM

is it too much to ask for a competent thrown weapons expert? Someone who can trow daggers and hatchets all day? And if those run out, anything else?

Oh and while the battlemaster fighter is a great step into the right direction, I'd like TOB to be ported over: I quite liked the schools of fighting and different approaches to fighting philosophy.

Yeah, this would please me. I am not sure what class it would be best for though. Personally i think you could get much of the same using a thrown fighting style and a throwing feat.

ToB would be a good port. ToB that would add a lot to all martial characters (In terms of options and complexity) would be a great addition to the game, but probably would be deep enough, popular enough and able to support enough fluff that it wouldn't be a UA but a paid product (I would pay for it...)

Ravinsild

2016-12-05, 11:51 AM

Honestly I hope they come out with a Dark Sun book soon. That's my favorite D&D setting. Although in the remaining classes UAs I wouldn't mind seeing what was the 4e "Invoker" a sort of Priest Blaster/Controller type subclass for maybe....maybe Cleric? Or Wizard? Also wouldn't hate seeing Matthew Mercer's Gunslinger or call it an Artificer or something made official. To be 100% honest I wouldn't mind a whole UA or book with like "Heroes of Shadow" themes for every class and new races. Undead style Rogues and enhanced Necromancy for Wizard and deeper Death Domain for Clerics and Blackguards and all that good stuff.

Also possibly a Shaman subclass for Druid or something. Sort of a healing/support role Druid like...if a Cleric and a Druid had a baby and made a wild cleric that used nature magic to heal people and stuff or something maybe it's redundant.

Anderlith

2016-12-05, 12:15 PM

is it too much to ask for a competent thrown weapons expert? Someone who can trow daggers and hatchets all day? And if those run out, anything else?

Oh and while the battlemaster fighter is a great step into the right direction, I'd like TOB to be ported over: I quite liked the schools of fighting and different approaches to fighting philosophy.

Better done as a feat, not as a subclass.

They could give it some bonuses to throwning similar Sharpshooter, the ability to thrown improvized weapons similar to Tavern Brawler, & maybe aa dash of something else, like hiding throwning knoves in your hair.

Boom, 5E Throw Anything feat

MeeposFire

2016-12-05, 02:46 PM

Yeah, this would please me. I am not sure what class it would be best for though. Personally i think you could get much of the same using a thrown fighting style and a throwing feat.

ToB would be a good port. ToB that would add a lot to all martial characters (In terms of options and complexity) would be a great addition to the game, but probably would be deep enough, popular enough and able to support enough fluff that it wouldn't be a UA but a paid product (I would pay for it...)

How odd you said you did not want a warlord type character and then you want to port the system that had white raven which does the 3e version of the same thing. ToB is essentially the beta for 4e having to deal with the strangeness of 3e action economy.

Llama513

2016-12-05, 04:05 PM

I'm curious if any one else feels that Arcane Archer should have been a Ranger Archetype or is that just me, I'm fine with Sharpshooter for Fighter, it feels right at home as a fighter, but Arcane Archer strikes me as more of a Ranger, I don't know what do you guys think? On second look as you only get the two uses of Arcane Arrow it works okay as a fighter, I would prefer to see it as a Ranger Archetype if it had more uses of Arcane Arrow, I don't Know how I fully feel about it.

DragonSorcererX

2016-12-05, 04:06 PM

I'm curious if any one else feels that Arcane Archer should have been a Ranger Archetype or is that just me, I'm fine with Sharpshooter for Fighter, it feels right at home as a fighter, but Arcane Archer strikes me as more of a Ranger, I don't know what do you guys think?

Arcane Archer is ARCANE, not DIVINE HIPPIE, it would be the same if Psychic Warrior was a Paladin Archetype...

DracoKnight

2016-12-05, 04:09 PM

Arcane Archer is ARCANE, not DIVINE HIPPIE...

It really could have been a Wizard archetype...I think I'd like that better, honestly :smalltongue:

Llama513

2016-12-05, 04:11 PM

Arcane Archer is ARCANE, not DIVINE HIPPIE, it would be the same if Psychic Warrior was a Paladin Archetype...

It could be tweaked in the name, and the flavor

DragonSorcererX

2016-12-05, 04:17 PM

It could be tweaked in the name, and the flavor

The problem is that the Ranger already has a bunch of stuff going on for him that makes no sense for an Arcane Archer, the same way the Artificer can't be a Rogue Archetype because the rogue already has a bunch of stuff going on like Sneak Attack...

Valluman

2016-12-05, 04:25 PM

I personally don't like the "necromancers" in this version of D&D. The actual Necromancer has to expend spells to keep their minions going, drastically lowering their own versatility. The Undying Pact Warlock can't raise dead, which makes them pretty bad for the traditional necromancer type. The Death Clerics are more in line with the whole bad-touch necromancer from 3.5, but as far as minionmancing goes, they are very lackluster and suffer the same issue as the wizard Necromancer, except even more so.

I dunno, I've just been rather underwhelmed by "necromancers" in this version of D&D.

Llama513

2016-12-05, 04:39 PM

The problem is that the Ranger already has a bunch of stuff going on for him that makes no sense for an Arcane Archer, the same way the Artificer can't be a Rogue Archetype because the rogue already has a bunch of stuff going on like Sneak Attack...

I guess that is fair, it just feels strange in that it feels like Fighter at the moment is a better archer than Ranger, which feels wrong, but I feel like that will be remedied in the Ranger UA, or am I alone in feeling like Fighter is a better Archer than Ranger, and that Ranger should be the better archer.

I do agree with DracoKnight that it would have been really cool as a wizard Archetype

rooneg

2016-12-05, 04:51 PM

I guess that is fair, it just feels strange in that it feels like Fighter at the moment is a better archer than Ranger, which feels wrong, but I feel like that will be remedied in the Ranger UA, or am I alone in feeling like Fighter is a better Archer than Ranger, and that Ranger should be the better archer.

I do agree with DracoKnight that it would have been really cool as a wizard Archetype

I fail to see how "guy who hangs out in the woods" should automatically be a better archer than a professional warrior who specializes in archery. By taking the Fighter class you've said "I wish to be extremely good at combat", and by choosing a fighting style and an archetype that is specialized in archery you've further said "that combat should be with a bow and arrow". The Ranger has said "i wish to be a wilderness warrior", so some percentage of their class's power will be definition be spent on stuff that is not combat (at least somewhat more so than a pure Fighter). It should not be surprising that the result is that the Fighter is a better archer. In return they have given up various wilderness themed abilities that the Ranger gets to take advantage of.

Llama513

2016-12-05, 04:55 PM

I fail to see how "guy who hangs out in the woods" should automatically be a better archer than a professional warrior who specializes in archery. By taking the Fighter class you've said "I wish to be extremely good at combat", and by choosing a fighting style and an archetype that is specialized in archery you've further said "that combat should be with a bow and arrow". The Ranger has said "i wish to be a wilderness warrior", so some percentage of their class's power will be definition be spent on stuff that is not combat (at least somewhat more so than a pure Fighter). It should not be surprising that the result is that the Fighter is a better archer. In return they have given up various wilderness themed abilities that the Ranger gets to take advantage of.

That is fair, I had never thought of it that way, part of why I always associate Ranger with archery is how many unique arrow based spells they get, but when explained as you have I understand why it is that the Fighter would be a better archer, and helps put both Arcane Archer and Sharpshooter into perspective.

Arkhios

2016-12-05, 05:15 PM

It really could have been a Wizard archetype...I think I'd like that better, honestly :smalltongue:

Arcane Archer sure is different than I was expecting, but I kinda like this approach better. After all, Arcane Archer is an Archer first, and an "arcanist" only after that. Not the other way around.

Also, I agree that Arcane Archer has zero flavor that would have to be associated with rangers. Ranger and Ranged are two different things, mind you, and they are not by any means a must-have combination. Even the most famous ranger, Aragorn, is a melee character first and foremost.

My immediate association after seeing Arcane Archer as a fighter was Hawkeye. It's just so easy to see those abilities explained by MARVELous Science instead of magic.

I must admit I was surprised to see Knight - and even Samurai - to see their own archetypes, but JC and MM did it again: awesome job with these. UA is beginning to look like a lot more assertive source of new class options than it was before.

Only Sharpshooter didn't really find its way home for me. Not because they have a shoehorned ability for bonus action ranged attack (war cleric can do it from 1st level), but because it feels a bit contrived.
Although, I guess Wilhelm Tell and Robin Hood are happier now?

To add to my initial wishes what I'd like to see next: Horizon Walker as a ranger subclass.

Llama513

2016-12-05, 05:20 PM

Arcane Archer sure is different than I was expecting, but I kinda like this approach better. After all, Arcane Archer is an Archer first, and an "arcanist" only after that. Not the other way around.

Also, I agree that Arcane Archer has zero flavor that would have to be associated with rangers. Ranger and Ranged are two different things, mind you, and they are not by any means a must-have combination. Even the most famous ranger, Aragorn, is a melee character first and foremost.

My immediate association after seeing Arcane Archer as a fighter was Hawkeye. It's just so easy to see those abilities explained by MARVELous Science instead of magic.

I must admit I was surprised to see Knight - and even Samurai - to see their own archetypes, but JC and MM did it again: awesome job with these. UA is beginning to look like a lot more assertive source of new class options than it was before.

Only Sharpshooter didn't really find its way home for me. Not because they have a shoehorned ability for bonus action ranged attack (war cleric can do it from 1st level), but because it feels a bit contrived.
Although, I guess Wilhelm Tell and Robin Hood are happier now?\

After looking at the nature of the classes more I understand that the Fighter should be a better archer, my association between ranger and ranged is how many unique archery spells they get,

As for Arcane Archer I have come to agree that is right where it needs to be as a fighter, I just wish it had something so that once you used your Arcane Arrows you weren't just a archer, and you got something from you archetype, not that the conjure arrows feature is not incredible it is, its just that you only have two uses in a big fight of your really unique feature, and beyond that you don't really get anything from it.

Sigreid

2016-12-05, 05:26 PM

Generally, it's that people don't want something as offensively-heavy as the fighter class chassis but also don't necessarily want a spellcaster (e.g. bard, cleric) for a more support-oriented role. From what I gather, a big appeal of the warlord was that it empowered a previously (relatively non-existent) martial support niche, particularly on a tactical level, for people who did not want to be full-on fighters, magical music makers, or priests. And a lot of the resistance against the warlord most often comes from what Meepos describes, as well as anti-4E people who see the Warlord as emblematic of 4E.

I could see a fighter that could do inspiration dice (cool), allow someone to use hit dice outside of a short rest x times per short rest (neato), and do bonus action help (been done), but I would have issue with some of the other things mentioned.

mephnick

2016-12-05, 05:33 PM

I could see a fighter that could do inspiration dice (cool), allow someone to use hit dice outside of a short rest x times per short rest (neato), and do bonus action help (been done), but I would have issue with some of the other things mentioned.

Agreed. The warlord moving pieces around the battleground worked in 4e because it was basically a battleground skirmish game with some RP shoehorned in. The 4e warlord in 5e would be completely dumb and not fit with the system at all. I have no idea why this is such a popular request.

Arkhios

2016-12-05, 05:43 PM

Ravinsild

2016-12-05, 05:50 PM

Two words: MMO generation.

4e felt in many ways like it was an MMO on tabletop that I wouldn't be surprised if kids who have grown up playing MMO's would think 4e as "the best edition evah".

Ps. Excuse me while I go smother my grognard urges...

I actually like advanced D&D, Pathfinder, 4e and 5e. As long as it's pretty balanced and everyone has a chance to do a cool thing (Spell-casters don't completely make Fighters and melee types completely irrelevant) I like them all, although as a long time WoW player I did heavily favor and enjoy 4e. I'm tied with my new found love for 5e and 4e.

Arkhios

2016-12-05, 06:39 PM

I actually like advanced D&D, Pathfinder, 4e and 5e. As long as it's pretty balanced and everyone has a chance to do a cool thing (Spell-casters don't completely make Fighters and melee types completely irrelevant) I like them all, although as a long time WoW player I did heavily favor and enjoy 4e. I'm tied with my new found love for 5e and 4e.

It's alright that people like 4th edition. I did.
It's just important to realize and accept that the editions are different in more ways than their numeric orders. Things that worked in nth edition doesn't neccessarily work in others, because in D&D (can't really say about other systems) editions are not exactly continuous to each other. They have similarities, but enough differences that some things just won't port over that well.

End of rant... 4th edition was fun to play for a while. Then along came Pathfinder which appealed to my 3.5 nostalgy.

MrStabby

2016-12-05, 06:52 PM

How odd you said you did not want a warlord type character and then you want to port the system that had white raven which does the 3e version of the same thing. ToB is essentially the beta for 4e having to deal with the strangeness of 3e action economy.

Eh, I guess ToB isn't the product I thought it was then. I thought it was the one with the stances and styles and more martial options for 3rd edition? Maybe I cocked that one up.

SovelsAtaask

2016-12-05, 11:06 PM

Eh, I guess ToB isn't the product I thought it was then. I thought it was the one with the stances and styles and more martial options for 3rd edition? Maybe I cocked that one up.

No, that's exactly what it is.

MeeposFire

2016-12-05, 11:24 PM

Eh, I guess ToB isn't the product I thought it was then. I thought it was the one with the stances and styles and more martial options for 3rd edition? Maybe I cocked that one up.

No that is exactly what it was. Warlords are really similar to the white raven and devoted spirit. White raven gave you abilities (sometimes stances which are like buffs, sometimes strikes which were various kinds of attacks, and other abilities that boosted mostly your allies) that many times boosted the attack and damage rolls of allies, gave your allies attacks not on their turns, and moved allies around the battlefield. Its most powerful strike was a charge that your character did with bonus damage which then had a number of your allies charge on your turn as well to get a free charge attack and if two of you hit then you get a free stun too. Devoted spirit had a number of healing strikes and other options that later found its way to the warlord. The big change their is that the healing was supernatural in ToB but was not in 4e.

Warlords play much the same just using the action economy from 4e rather than 3e.

MeeposFire

2016-12-05, 11:26 PM

Princess

2016-12-06, 03:03 AM

Agreed. The warlord moving pieces around the battleground worked in 4e because it was basically a battleground skirmish game with some RP shoehorned in. The 4e warlord in 5e would be completely dumb and not fit with the system at all. I have no idea why this is such a popular request.

Based purely on trying to port mechanics, it would be difficult. But the idea of a martial-themed character overtly focused on teamwork is popular *because it's very thematically interesting.* But I understand why the 5e designers haven't prioritized that and aren't sure how to do it in a way that fits the system. Presently the right kooky Multiclass (Battlemaster + Valor Bard + Wolf Barbarian?!) can fake it but pushing the envelope seems like an excellent goal for this new articles series.

But personally I'd guess a Warlord is less likely than an Artificer, and an Artificer is months away at best. But maybe we'll get a Pact of Pun-pun for April Fools?

Arkhios

2016-12-06, 03:16 AM

It is requested so much because the class was fun and potent. The problem is that at least so far the things required to make that class work have been shown to not be used so far in this edition. We can already see the warlords influence in the battlemaster fighter and unless they want to make some changes in direction that is what we are going to see for a warlord.

Well, if you look at the name more closely, you'll realize that 'Battle Master' is synonymous with 'War Lord'. Maybe we should just accept that's what we'll get, and next time someone's making a warlord type character, direct them to Battle Master and try not to take the most damaging maneuvers but instead the most supporting ones.

Kobard

2016-12-06, 03:50 AM

I could see a fighter that could do inspiration dice (cool), allow someone to use hit dice outside of a short rest x times per short rest (neato), and do bonus action help (been done), but I would have issue with some of the other things mentioned.
Well, if you look at the name more closely, you'll realize that 'Battle Master' is synonymous with 'War Lord'. Maybe we should just accept that's what we'll get, and next time someone's making a warlord type character, direct them to Battle Master and try not to take the most damaging maneuvers but instead the most supporting ones.
Except building on top of the fighter chassis is not what warlorders (?) want. Just as the Eldritch Knight is a specialized 1/3 wizard on a fighter chassis, I could see the Battlemaster being a specialized 1/3 warlord on a fighter chassis. From what I have read, the fighter has too much offensive firepower, so warlorders really want something more akin to the support class chassis (e.g. d8 HD, light/medium armor proficiency, one extra attack max) but that has more support abilities than the fighter.

It is requested so much because the class was fun and potent. The problem is that at least so far the things required to make that class work have been shown to not be used so far in this edition. We can already see the warlords influence in the battlemaster fighter and unless they want to make some changes in direction that is what we are going to see for a warlord.Yeah, I could see that working for the warlord. I could see a warlord class could standing on its own in a manner that built from the Battlemaster. I would actually be interested in seeing maneuvers expanded into a tiered spell like list for the warlord and the warlord having "prepared maneuvers."

Foxydono

2016-12-06, 06:01 AM

Wouldn't that be better served by a Battlemaster fighter with the criminal background where his manuevers are the ways he cheats when fighting
This would come pretty close to what I have in mind, but would like to see a rogue variant being able to stand on the front lines. Like a trickster battling alongside the fighter, barbarian or druid, with some assist, evasion options and of course doing some decent damage as well.

Ravinsild

2016-12-06, 10:33 AM

It's alright that people like 4th edition. I did.
It's just important to realize and accept that the editions are different in more ways than their numeric orders. Things that worked in nth edition doesn't neccessarily work in others, because in D&D (can't really say about other systems) editions are not exactly continuous to each other. They have similarities, but enough differences that some things just won't port over that well.

End of rant... 4th edition was fun to play for a while. Then along came Pathfinder which appealed to my 3.5 nostalgy.

lol you don't have to tell me. I have an active character who is a human Barbarian from advanced D&D and between even advanced D&D and 3.x the editions were completely different. 5e to aD&D is like two entirely different games :P

I love Advanced D&D for how super simple it is. My Barbarian named Swordspam Swordsalot has a Mammoth pet he stole from a Giant because we are assaulting the Giants keep.

Princess

2016-12-06, 12:33 PM

This would come pretty close to what I have in mind, but would like to see a rogue variant being able to stand on the front lines. Like a trickster battling alongside the fighter, barbarian or druid, with some assist, evasion options and of course doing some decent damage as well.

*That* would be interesting indeed. A rogue variant with some sort of maneuver features could probably trade sneak attack dice for control or support effects on a case by case basis, perhaps. But that sort of redefines how a rogue would operate more than most subclasses in 5e. And Mastermind *kind of* does that with their help features (which is a subclass I quite enjoy).

MeeposFire

2016-12-06, 09:22 PM

Well, if you look at the name more closely, you'll realize that 'Battle Master' is synonymous with 'War Lord'. Maybe we should just accept that's what we'll get, and next time someone's making a warlord type character, direct them to Battle Master and try not to take the most damaging maneuvers but instead the most supporting ones.

Well that is what we do now but that is also why you are still getting people asking for the warlord itself. The battlemaster got the idea but does not give enough of what they want. Personally I think it is the differing expectations on what characters are allowed to do (extra out of turn attacks requiring the use of reactions in 5e but not in 4e) and how in 4e positioning powers were so important and powerful but in 5e those abilities are still useful but not as prevalent.

Arkhios

2016-12-06, 11:51 PM

Well that is what we do now but that is also why you are still getting people asking for the warlord itself. The battlemaster got the idea but does not give enough of what they want. Personally I think it is the differing expectations on what characters are allowed to do (extra out of turn attacks requiring the use of reactions in 5e but not in 4e) and how in 4e positioning powers were so important and powerful but in 5e those abilities are still useful but not as prevalent.

I meant a more final acceptance, not temporary. Part of the reason why people keep asking for more is (in my opinion) that they want something that can't exist within the boundaries that define 5th edition, because the Warlord they learned to love was based on the core functionalities that made 4th edition unique in a way: forced movements in free pattern for allies and enemies alike, with all the tactical advantages and shenanigans that came along with it. 4th edition was more tactical game than anything I've seen before in D&D; tactical positioning meant almost as much if not more than it does in chess.

In 5th edition, positioning is much less of a factor, and forced movement even less so, so abilities that would do it would be ultimately redundant, the amount of spells and abilities that do forced movement are limited to push and pull. How many tricks do you really need for that?
Also, for example, movement provokes opportunity attacks much less frequently than before. Also in the same vein, using a grid is an optional thing now. In the mind's theater, characters don't move in a grid, but rather in a way that's appropriate for the situation at hand. The only tactical positioning that is enforced is that one character needs to be next to same target for another character to have any additional benefits against it. Actual locations, and distances, are largely irrelevant. When positioning doesn't matter that much, battle master's maneuvers are enough. The rest that makes a battle master feel like a warlord is in the hands of the player - or rather, in their minds. Players are basically enforced to involve themselves in actual roleplaying to gain mechanical advantages for the rollplay. A warlord is nothing if not a great opportunity for roleplaying a commander type character. There are no definitive rules that can tell you how you must do that.

Millstone85

2016-12-10, 04:36 PM

Some things I really want for the warlock:
* An updated list of familiars available with Pact of the Chain. In particular, tiny aberrations (like the gazer from VGtM) and tiny undead (like the crawling claw from the MM) would cover missing patron flavors.
* A new pact boon. Something like Pact of the Star Chain from a previous UA, only with a better name and without the restriction to a specific patron. I think Pact of the Orb or Pact of the Eye would sound nice.
* A patron called "The Elemental", which would encompass primordials, genies, titans (including krakens) and some giants. It would share the "Welp, some are good aligned" aspect of the archfey patron.

JumboWheat01

2016-12-10, 07:11 PM

* A patron called "The Elemental", which would encompass primordials, genies, titans (including krakens) and some giants. It would share the "Welp, some are good aligned" aspect of the archfey patron.

I remember reading something on the Eberron Wiki about Gnomes forging Warlock pacts with Elementals, so I'd definitely like that idea.

Especially if it leads to an official Eberron book.

Sigreid

2016-12-10, 08:44 PM

I meant a more final acceptance, not temporary. Part of the reason why people keep asking for more is (in my opinion) that they want something that can't exist within the boundaries that define 5th edition, because the Warlord they learned to love was based on the core functionalities that made 4th edition unique in a way: forced movements in free pattern for allies and enemies alike, with all the tactical advantages and shenanigans that came along with it. 4th edition was more tactical game than anything I've seen before in D&D; tactical positioning meant almost as much if not more than it does in chess.

In 5th edition, positioning is much less of a factor, and forced movement even less so, so abilities that would do it would be ultimately redundant, the amount of spells and abilities that do forced movement are limited to push and pull. How many tricks do you really need for that?
Also, for example, movement provokes opportunity attacks much less frequently than before. Also in the same vein, using a grid is an optional thing now. In the mind's theater, characters don't move in a grid, but rather in a way that's appropriate for the situation at hand. The only tactical positioning that is enforced is that one character needs to be next to same target for another character to have any additional benefits against it. Actual locations, and distances, are largely irrelevant. When positioning doesn't matter that much, battle master's maneuvers are enough. The rest that makes a battle master feel like a warlord is in the hands of the player - or rather, in their minds. Players are basically enforced to involve themselves in actual roleplaying to gain mechanical advantages for the rollplay. A warlord is nothing if not a great opportunity for roleplaying a commander type character. There are no definitive rules that can tell you how you must do that.

Aside from all that, there are no doubt a number of people like me. I really don't want my character to be Timmy's chess piece when the fight starts. The idea of another player using their abilities to move my character around the battle field and direct his attacks does not sit well with me.

MeeposFire

2016-12-10, 09:56 PM

Aside from all that, there are no doubt a number of people like me. I really don't want my character to be Timmy's chess piece when the fight starts. The idea of another player using their abilities to move my character around the battle field and direct his attacks does not sit well with me.

I can understand that and in 4e it was less of a problem because on your own turn you still got all of your actions so what the warlord had you do were all a bonus.

In 5e this is more problematic since so far it seems to cost you at least things like your reaction. This means it affects what you can do at other times in a round.

Though to be honest to fix that for you even in 4e the warlord could grant you the extra attacks and the like and let you choose how you want to use it (you get to choose the target for your attack and where you may move and the like) so essentially it is just like getting an extra turn with restrictions on what you can do with it. I have seen it done both ways at the weekly adventures league tables back in the day.