Mike Mearl's Happy Fun Hour a Book of Nine Swords/4E Daily power Fighter Subclass

[Spamotron]

MMHFH 8/7/18 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsmO9C4ydLM) and MMFH 8/14/18 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azOZh69xJOI)

Mike is doing a series of videos on the playtesting process and for the sake of that he's developed the Weapon Master a daily power fighter subclass to push the envelope a bit. It looks pretty neat to me but Mike doesn't know if there's enough interest to develop it further and make it into a proper UA.

If you like the idea and want to see it further developed let him know on his Twitter (https://twitter.com/mikemearls?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp% 7Ctwgr%5Eauthor).

[Derpaligtr]

MMHFH 8/7/18 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsmO9C4ydLM) and MMFH 8/14/18 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azOZh69xJOI)

Mike is doing a series of videos on the playtesting process and for the sake of that he's developed the Weapon Master a daily power fighter subclass to push the envelope a bit. It looks pretty neat to me but Mike doesn't know if there's enough interest to develop it further and make it into a proper UA.

If you like the idea and want to see it further developed let him know on his Twitter (https://twitter.com/mikemearls?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp% 7Ctwgr%5Eauthor).

Wait, he wants to make a daily resource fighter?

That's, like, the one thing people didn't like about the 4e fighter! It was the daily resources! Like... Why even... Ugh... I love me some BoNS/4e but why take that of all things and run with it??

[Mikal]

Oooh I like it. I hope he keeps developing it. Special martial techniques that are more flavorful and powerful but gated more by uses makes it a nice contrast to battle master

[Joe the Rat]

Would it be such a departure to simply add maneuvers with a 1/ long rest stipulation (or even - gasp! - a level prerequisite) to the BM's manuever pool?

[Mikal]

That would be the better thing yes but since they don’t want to seem to modify existing subclasses or base classes I’d rather have it be an option rather than not exist

[Kane0]

Would it be such a departure to simply add maneuvers with a 1/ long rest stipulation (or even - gasp! - a level prerequisite) to the BM's manuever pool?

One could make an argument for Bloat, the same way one doesn't make a flood of feats or warlock invocations.

A couple would be good though, for variety and a reason to continue past the initial dip.

[Derpaligtr]

Would it be such a departure to simply add maneuvers with a 1/ long rest stipulation (or even - gasp! - a level prerequisite) to the BM's manuever pool?

I think the issue has always been that it just doesn't make sense within the context of the game most of the time.

Saying I can use one daily once, but like 5 different encounter abilities 10 times... But the encounter abilities are only slightly worse than the daily... Yeah you get some weird dynamics.

Now, if you gave the fighter "stamina pool" (which you may as well call Ki or Power Points) then it can work...

Honestly, the Fighter could just be remade in the image of the Monk and call it a day... Hmmm

[Daithi]

I've been looking forward to Mike wrapping up this play test Happy Fun Hour and moving on to something else. Can't say I'm a fan of the last 2 weeks.

[Finback]

I like the idea. I feel like fighters need something to make them a little more diverse. Some sort of "heroic action" with a long rest cap would help engender this. I felt that this was one of the things I liked about 4e that didn't carry over - stuff like a fighter being able to slow an enemy, stuff like applying those conditions makes them feel like they are doing more than just whacking away with a sword.

[NiklasWB]

Really didn't like this at all. It just feels like a Battle Master version with long rest (nova) abilities, rather than something new or something that is actually need (like the Warlord/Marshal).

This just feels like a "I can always hit" Fighter, and the sub-subclass design just feels bloated. It works for some classes (such as the Barbarian), but this feels overly complicated/messy for a fighter that is supposedly made to be easy to understand.

Also, I hate the overly cheesy names and concepts, "Stone Dragon", "Shadow Harlequin"… for a fighter, really? Battle Master is a great name because you can make thousands of concepts with it and not break the immersion. This just feels over-the-top, trying to be cool.

We already have the College of Swords Bard and the Swashbuckler Rogue, and the Battle Master Fighter. We don't need more fencing archetypes, and especially not for those classes. I think 5e should be wary of bloat with subclasses, which is already starting to lead to power-creep. Also, one should never have to go "I want to be a fencer Errol Flynn Fighter, but Battle Master and Weapon Master both fulfil that… now I have to pick which is mechanically better (which is usually the one released later)".

Furthermore I really hate the specialization for fighting styles. This means that you HAVE to take the Weapon Master if you want to be "the best" at fighting with a specific fighting style. This may not mean much mechanically, but it sure as hell messes with the Champion or Battle Master or Samurai who conceptually wanted to be "he best" at his chosen weapon. This could be a Fighter specific Feat however.

Lastly, the Stone Dragon abilities feel to much like they are infringing on Feats and other classes' abilities, while the Shadow Harlequin seems like pure Bard abilities. Using your action to make the target move to you and make a single attack? Yeah, no, the fighter makes 2-4 attacks instead, thank you very much.

Overall, hate this both ona conceptual and mechanical standpoint. Trash it and focus on the Warlord/Marshal (which was great both conceptually and a solid start mechanically) when it comes to the Fighter.

[Derpaligtr]

Really didn't like this at all. It just feels like a Battle Master version with long rest (nova) abilities, rather than something new or something that is actually need (like the Warlord/Marshal).

This just feels like a "I can always hit" Fighter, and the sub-subclass design just feels bloated. It works for some classes (such as the Barbarian), but this feels overly complicated/messy for a fighter that is supposedly made to be easy to understand.

Also, I hate the overly cheesy names and concepts, "Stone Dragon", "Shadow Harlequin"… for a fighter, really? Battle Master is a great name because you can make thousands of concepts with it and not break the immersion. This just feels over-the-top, trying to be cool.

We already have the College of Swords Bard and the Swashbuckler Rogue, and the Battle Master Fighter. We don't need more fencing archetypes, and especially not for those classes. I think 5e should be wary of bloat with subclasses, which is already starting to lead to power-creep. Also, one should never have to go "I want to be a fencer Errol Flynn Fighter, but Battle Master and Weapon Master both fulfil that… now I have to pick which is mechanically better (which is usually the one released later)".

Furthermore I really hate the specialization for fighting styles. This means that you HAVE to take the Weapon Master if you want to be "the best" at fighting with a specific fighting style. This may not mean much mechanically, but it sure as hell messes with the Champion or Battle Master or Samurai who conceptually wanted to be "he best" at his chosen weapon. This could be a Fighter specific Feat however.

Lastly, the Stone Dragon abilities feel to much like they are infringing on Feats and other classes' abilities, while the Shadow Harlequin seems like pure Bard abilities. Using your action to make the target move to you and make a single attack? Yeah, no, the fighter makes 2-4 attacks instead, thank you very much.

Overall, hate this both ona conceptual and mechanical standpoint. Trash it and focus on the Warlord/Marshal (which was great both conceptually and a solid start mechanically) when it comes to the Fighter.

I'm on you side with some of this... However, I don't think it's the Stone Dragon that is infringing on feats... I think feats infringe on the Fighter.

Kinda like how there are spellcasting feats to replicate spellcasting, I think feats should have been a Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue features and then give us feats to simulate them.

Also, I love the name of the Stone Dragon, it's no more cheesy than wizard, Warlock, or Paladin. Lol

[UrielAwakened]

Glad to see it only took them like 3 years to remember 4e had a lot of great mechanics.

[Derpaligtr]

Glad to see it only took them like 3 years to remember 4e had a lot of great mechanics.

Well, 4e was Mike being Mike.

Too bad WotC/Hasbro didn't fully support the game like they said they would... That character generator and other programs would have been amazing.

[UrielAwakened]

Well, 4e was Mike being Mike.

Too bad WotC/Hasbro didn't fully support the game like they said they would... That character generator and other programs would have been amazing.

Yeah I recently communicated to him through Reddit and found out he plans to remake like every 4e monster in 5e statblock so I'm excited for that. He already did the Blazing Skeleton.

[Boci]

Glad to see it only took them like 3 years to remember 4e had a lot of great mechanics.

Given that 5th ed used some of the stuffof 4th ed from the get go (full restoring HP from a nights rest, the Feywild), I think it took a bit less than 3 years.

[Derpaligtr]

Given that 5th ed used some of the stuffof 4th ed from the get go (full restoring HP from a nights rest, the Feywild), I think it took a bit less than 3 years.

If you look at 4e Essentials you find even more stuff.

The Slayer is the Champion and the Thief is well... The rogue.

Edit: also, advantage/disadvantage is a simplified 4e rule of +2/-2)

[alchahest]

during the playtest, maneuvers and superiority dice were a feature of the fighter base class. But core competency and resource management is not something the vocal minority wanted - so they shouted louder and the fighter was dumbed down.

[UrielAwakened]

Given that 5th ed used some of the stuffof 4th ed from the get go (full restoring HP from a nights rest, the Feywild), I think it took a bit less than 3 years.

That is such surface-level stuff compared to the innovations and streamlined stuff 4e changed (Monster encounter building, healing surges, second winds, defined party roles for players, etc..)

Arguably proficiency is just a slowed-down version of half-level to everything I guess as well.

[Boci]

That is such surface-level stuff compared to the innovations and streamlined stuff 4e changed (Monster encounter building, healing surges, second winds, defined party roles for players, etc..)

A lot of that stuff was very hit or miss, and to many felt quite out of place in a roleplaying game to some. Defined party roles in particular were very inorganic. Its not wrong to like them, but calling them unamigously good is a little suspect.


Arguably proficiency is just a slowed-down version of half-level to everything I guess as well.

Not really. You don't add your proficiency to defence by default. 4th ed didn't have monsters you could hit on rolls of 3, but 5th ed does.

[Exocist]

While I did like BoNS (as I understand the 3.5 fanbase was very divided on it though), it is not for the reasons Mike is putting down currently.

BoNS was great because it gave the martial classes, which are often starved for out of combat options, utility options, support options and basically anything that isn't a damage option all of the above. Their "draw" over a caster was that they could do it continuously. A caster can use invisibility and short distance teleports to sneak into a castle, but if it's a long stretch of stealth he/she might run out of spell slots fairly easily. A Swordsage could use Cloak of Deception and Shadow Jaunt constantly - it didn't matter if it was a short or long stretch of stealth, the swordsage would have pretty much the same resources from start to finish.

Mearls seems to be too focused on the "Extra to-hit/damage + minor rider, long rest recovery" which is what a Fighter doesn't need. They already excel (in 5e anyway) at doing things in combat that involve attacking. What they sorely lack is ways to attack the game outside of the "hit 1 dude with damage" angle, which the current design of the Weapon Master isn't getting anywhere near solving. As is, it just looks like a stronger Battle Master (which I think should have been base fighter stuff) that's long rest recovery instead of short rest recovery.

BoNS would probably need a separate class (idk call it "The Martial Adept" or something) to port over well though. Even then, it probably wouldn't mesh well with the 5e system, given their focus on encounter powers that are easily rechargeable rather than short rest-limited resources.

[alchahest]

While I did like BoNS (as I understand the 3.5 fanbase was very divided on it though), it is not for the reasons Mike is putting down currently.

BoNS was great because it gave the martial classes, which are often starved for out of combat options, utility options, support options and basically anything that isn't a damage option all of the above. Their "draw" over a caster was that they could do it continuously. A caster can use invisibility and short distance teleports to sneak into a castle, but if it's a long stretch of stealth he/she might run out of spell slots fairly easily. A Swordsage could use Cloak of Deception and Shadow Jaunt constantly - it didn't matter if it was a short or long stretch of stealth, the swordsage would have pretty much the same resources from start to finish.

Mearls seems to be too focused on the "Extra to-hit/damage + minor rider, long rest recovery" which is what a Fighter doesn't need. They already excel (in 5e anyway) at doing things in combat that involve attacking. What they sorely lack is ways to attack the game outside of the "hit 1 dude with damage" angle, which the current design of the Weapon Master isn't getting anywhere near solving. As is, it just looks like a stronger Battle Master (which I think should have been base fighter stuff) that's long rest recovery instead of short rest recovery.

BoNS would probably need a separate class (idk call it "The Martial Adept" or something) to port over well though. Even then, it probably wouldn't mesh well with the 5e system, given their focus on encounter powers that are easily rechargeable rather than short rest-limited resources.

I largely agree, except for the "minor rider" bit - battlemasters have access to this within limits, but others do not - eldritch knights don't, samurai don't, arcane archers... exist I guess, purple dragon knights don't. and of course base class fighter does not. What fighters do, is have a large number of completely normal attacks. there's nothing built into the class that adds additional damage or riders (outside of some battlemaster maneuvers)

[Exocist]

I largely agree, except for the "minor rider" bit - battlemasters have access to this within limits, but others do not - eldritch knights don't, samurai don't, arcane archers... exist I guess, purple dragon knights don't. and of course base class fighter does not. What fighters do, is have a large number of completely normal attacks. there's nothing built into the class that adds additional damage or riders (outside of some battlemaster maneuvers)

My apologies, may have worded it poorly, what I meant to say was that because the Fighter is already good at hitting single things for lots of damage, he really doesn't need features that add more to-hit and damage. Part of the problem I have with the battle master is that a lot of the power seems to be concentrated on the "you deal a bit more damage" with the maneuvers, with the extra effects being basically meaningless most of the time (The only two maneuvers I find really cool are Commander's Strike and Riposte).

What the Fighter subclass should be adding is options - ways to interact with the game outside of hitting 1 dude for a lot of damage. BoNS really helped with this angle you had

Diamond mind to shore up lacking defenses
Desert Wind for Area Attacks (though this was bad due to fire damage and wasn't very interesting)
Setting Sun to improve on the grapple/trip game. Also gave some counter-melee options.
Stone Dragon to... suck. Sorry I can't sell 3.5e stone dragon. It had Mountain Hammer and Crushing Weight of the Mountain.
Shadow Hand to let you do rouge-y things - teleporting, invisibility, disabling, etc.
Devoted Spirit to give you the ability to support your allies. You are no longer just a wall (questionable) of HP - you are actually threatening if they decide to ignore you.
Iron Heart combined Diamond Mind (granting some defenses) and Desert Wind (giving area options). It was mostly uninspiring though. Could be split up easily.
White Raven gave you the battlefield commander feel - it let you disable and support your allies (if they were melee).
Tiger Claw was really the only "Straight Damage" discipline. Could easily be cut.


The direction they seem to keep going with the Fighter subclass is just adding more ways for them to deal a lot of damage to 1 target. IMO, something like the Brute/Champion should be left in as the "Simple" fighter archetype (That focuses on dealing a lot more damage to one target) while the other subclasses grant you ways to interact with the game that aren't that. I doubt we'll ever see that happen though. At least I can hold onto the hope that one day BoNS will get a print for 5e and make me consider playing a martial character that isn't a rogue or monk (monk is pretty up in the air though). Every other martial feels so limited in the ways they can interact with the game.

[UrielAwakened]

Stone Dragon should focus on damage resistance. Less about avoiding hits, more about absorbing them.

I already made a 5e version of Unfettered that I think captures what Stone Dragon is about pretty effectively.

[rbstr]

One of the things about this subclass is it highlights the disparity in expected strength of spells vs. most martial powers in a pretty stark way. Battlemaster at level 20 is getting what? 6 die per rest...18 per day at 1d12 per use. So 18d12 of damage added maybe: 117 damage? Here you get 60d6: 210 damage...even if you dump a die for accuracy and another for an effect every time you still come out ~50 damage ahead.
Yikes, that's a lot more!
Cavalier at 20 can add ...50 damage + 5x weapon attacks with it's bonus hit from levle 3.
Sam probably doesn't add nearly as much with it's level 3 ability alone. Even Rapid strike + Fighting Spirit is only 6 extra attacks a day.
But then...Weapon Master's mathematical equivalent already exists in the PHB as the EK. (Though, to be fair, most damage spells take an action so you have the opportunity cost of ~3 attacks a round accounting for improved warmagic)
So maybe don't balance this off of EK...which clearly overshoots a Fighter Archetype's level 3 ability's expected damage curve. Or re-blance the rest of them.


Forgetting that higher-level issue I really like this archetype's concept: Stronger but fewer powers and a focus on specific weapons.
I really like the idea of trading some die on the Masterful Strike for other effects.
Superior Fighting style is fun to me, as something that's not really that strong but the right kind of flavor. Though I'd maybe look at the balance a bit there. Pretty sure +4 on dueling is waaaaay better than GWF's rerolling 1-3.

The Paths are probably too stuffed with things with the concept he had. Either only give 1 or 2 paths ever or knock them down into individual more invocation-like things with maybe 5-10 total choices?
Still got two archetype features to fill.

The whole thing is very similar to a homebrew martial class I've been putting together that works directly off of the Warlock's full-caster spellslot scaling. Like at 9th level they have two uses of their Techniques and they're roughly strength-equivalent to 5th level spells. A thing they could do at 9th level is essentially Steel Wind Strike - a 5th level spell that basically converts right over.

[Theodoxus]

Wait, he wants to make a daily resource fighter?

That's, like, the one thing people didn't like about the 4e fighter! It was the daily resources! Like... Why even... Ugh... I love me some BoNS/4e but why take that of all things and run with it??

And the EK dies a bit inside...

Although to be honest, I changed the EK to work like a warlock. Fewer spell slots, but recharge on a short rest and are always maximum level. Fits the rest of the short rest theme of the fighter.

I'm really contemplating going back to 4th. As the more I play 5th ed, the more I realize that the innovations mentioned in this thread shouldn't have just been kicked to the curb over some knee-jerk reaction to "Video Game Mentality." I suspect if 4th and 5th had swapped when they were released, 4th would have received a lot of praise in this post-CRPG age.

[Boci]

And the EK dies a bit inside...

Although to be honest, I changed the EK to work like a warlock. Fewer spell slots, but recharge on a short rest and are always maximum level. Fits the rest of the short rest theme of the fighter.

I'm really contemplating going back to 4th. As the more I play 5th ed, the more I realize that the innovations mentioned in this thread shouldn't have just been kicked to the curb over some knee-jerk reaction to "Video Game Mentality." I suspect if 4th and 5th had swapped when they were released, 4th would have received a lot of praise in this post-CRPG age.

Yeah, its been years. "Video game mentality" could only only be a kneejerk reaction. Its not as if a game that assigned roles to both classes and monsters, including a tank role that always came with its own ability to compel or incentivise monsters to attack them, freely used different systems for HP depending on the monsters intended function, and made different version of the same creature in a design form reminiscent of pallet swapping (hyena became cacklefiend hyena, griffon became grimefire griffon) could be analyzed thoughtfully and objection and concluded to resemble a video game more than the edition that came before and after it.

If you like 4th ed, then yes you probably should return to it. But dissmissing the videogame comparison without addressing the features that reminded people of a videogame is just arrogant.

[Derpaligtr]

A lot of that stuff was very hit or miss, and to many felt quite out of place in a roleplaying game to some. Defined party roles in particular were very inorganic. Its not wrong to like them, but calling them unamigously good is a little suspect.



Not really. You don't add your proficiency to defence by default. 4th ed didn't have monsters you could hit on rolls of 3, but 5th ed does.

You got them to all three defenses because it showed a base proficiency in defending oneself as they level up.

5e doesn't have that assumption, because simplicity. Instead only certain things get that progression.

It's the same thing done for different design reasons.

They are both a " I combined BAB/Fort/Ref/Will" bonus system, which is just the THAC0 saving throw AC and saving throw system backwards...

Edit: 4e is WoW as much as 3e was Diablo... Which means yeah, similar but not in bad ways.

[Boci]

You got them to all three defenses because it showed a base proficiency in defending oneself as they level up.

5e doesn't have that assumption, because simplicity. Instead only certain things get that progression.

It's the same thing done for different design reasons.

They are both a " I combined BAB/Fort/Ref/Will" bonus system, which is just the THAC0 saving throw AC and saving throw system backwards...

But it was very videogamy. People were quick to notice "If I add half my level to attack and defence, and monsters presumable do the same, that's the same as adding nothing".

Now obviously other editions also needed to scale, but by not making the addition to AC automatic and rather gear or magic dependant, it felt more organic, rather than just an artificial balancing mechanism. A-sumetric scalling of offence and defence was an important feature for 3.5 and 5th ed, and one wizards chose to return to. As I mentioned previous, you were never really going to hit a monster with a 2 in 4th edition baring extremely specific circamstances, but 5thed it can happen much more often. So whilst both systems have a scaling, the 5th edone feels more organic.

[Ignimortis]

My apologies, may have worded it poorly, what I meant to say was that because the Fighter is already good at hitting single things for lots of damage, he really doesn't need features that add more to-hit and damage. Part of the problem I have with the battle master is that a lot of the power seems to be concentrated on the "you deal a bit more damage" with the maneuvers, with the extra effects being basically meaningless most of the time (The only two maneuvers I find really cool are Commander's Strike and Riposte).

What the Fighter subclass should be adding is options - ways to interact with the game outside of hitting 1 dude for a lot of damage. BoNS really helped with this angle you had

Diamond mind to shore up lacking defenses
Desert Wind for Area Attacks (though this was bad due to fire damage and wasn't very interesting)
Setting Sun to improve on the grapple/trip game. Also gave some counter-melee options.
Stone Dragon to... suck. Sorry I can't sell 3.5e stone dragon. It had Mountain Hammer and Crushing Weight of the Mountain.
Shadow Hand to let you do rouge-y things - teleporting, invisibility, disabling, etc.
Devoted Spirit to give you the ability to support your allies. You are no longer just a wall (questionable) of HP - you are actually threatening if they decide to ignore you.
Iron Heart combined Diamond Mind (granting some defenses) and Desert Wind (giving area options). It was mostly uninspiring though. Could be split up easily.
White Raven gave you the battlefield commander feel - it let you disable and support your allies (if they were melee).
Tiger Claw was really the only "Straight Damage" discipline. Could easily be cut.


The direction they seem to keep going with the Fighter subclass is just adding more ways for them to deal a lot of damage to 1 target. IMO, something like the Brute/Champion should be left in as the "Simple" fighter archetype (That focuses on dealing a lot more damage to one target) while the other subclasses grant you ways to interact with the game that aren't that. I doubt we'll ever see that happen though. At least I can hold onto the hope that one day BoNS will get a print for 5e and make me consider playing a martial character that isn't a rogue or monk (monk is pretty up in the air though). Every other martial feels so limited in the ways they can interact with the game.

Diamond Mind also has "I hit through armor" touch AC attacks, lots of Concentration-based swordsmanship, etc.
Desert Wind needs more elemental diversity. At least the old good fire-cold-lightning combo, and I figure at higher levels acid and thunder would be fine too.
Devoted Spirit had HEALING. Healing on a martial class, self-sustain, it was awesome.
Iron Heart had the most Fighter-y stuff - lots of blades, lots of attacks, PARRY MAGIC, HEROIC WILLPOWER (didn't work as advertised, sadly). Iron Heart was awesome in that "yes, I'm mostly a simple warrior...but I can actually block arrows with my sword, sunder spells and resist domination" way.
Stone Dragon had another thing going for it - disabling flyers. The most of its' "suck" was due to the ground requirement on SD, which can be safely removed.
White Raven is what Marshal should be. Maybe a few things moved around, but it got the job done.
Tiger Claw still had Scent, a good low-level tracking/see invisibility replacement. Also, crazy Jump check bonuses and some maneuvers dedicated to animesque jumps.

[jaappleton]

Anyone have any sort of link to just the written aspect of it? Really don't enjoy watching the whole thing.

[Ignimortis]

Anyone have any sort of link to just the written aspect of it? Really don't enjoy watching the whole thing.

Here you go. (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/97mxbx/the_mike_mearls_happy_fun_hour_20180814_the/)

I wish it was finished with maybe 9 or 10 paths and some more exploits. And if it was printed, I'd actually play that if I ever went back to 5e.

[CantigThimble]

Sigh, I would be mostly okay with this if they just come up with some more reasonable flavor for it. Just make it so they're actually using spells or making deals with elemental lords or fey or something. ANYTHING other than: "He's just so damn cool and good at sword that wuxia happens."

[Boci]

Sigh, I would be mostly okay with this if they just come up with some more reasonable flavor for it. Just make it so they're actually using spells or making deals with elemental lords or fey or something. ANYTHING other than: "He's just so damn cool and good at sword that wuxia happens."

Isn't it basically the same fluff as monk of the 5 elements?

[Ignimortis]

Sigh, I would be mostly okay with this if they just come up with some more reasonable flavor for it. Just make it so they're actually using spells or making deals with elemental lords or fey or something. ANYTHING other than: "He's just so damn cool and good at sword that wuxia happens."

I disagree. That's the part that's been sorely lacking in 5e. Everything cool is flavoured as magic or miracles.

[CantigThimble]

Isn't it basically the same fluff as monk of the 5 elements?

I give a bit more leniency to monk just because they do have extensive monastic training and associated harsh restrictions they must follow to use their abilities.


I disagree. That's the part that's been sorely lacking in 5e. Everything cool is flavoured as magic or miracles.

I'm quite happy it hasn't been included so far and would continue to be happy if it were never included. The two of us have different tastes in fantasy genres.

[Derpaligtr]

I disagree. That's the part that's been sorely lacking in 5e. Everything cool is flavoured as magic or miracles.

I've seen plenty of people walk away from the game because of this.

Because I've seen so many pushed out over restrictive views of fantasy... I've come to realize that people who like fantasy seem to have the most restrictive view points on fantasy... I find it poet...

[Mikal]

I disagree. That's the part that's been sorely lacking in 5e. Everything cool is flavoured as magic or miracles.

This. A thousand times this.

[Justin Sane]

This. A thousand times this.I honestly don't see the problem here. A 20th level Fighter can attack twice as fast as most other people trained in combat, and can occasionally double that. A 20th level Rogue can casually disembowel a bear with a swift stroke (okay, depends on HP, but you get my point), and no matter the circumstances, will not perform badly on their select skills.

I mean, that's obviously not something anyone can do. It's special. It's magic, in a much more wondrous sense of the word.

[Derpaligtr]

I honestly don't see the problem here. A 20th level Fighter can attack twice as fast as most other people trained in combat, and can occasionally double that. A 20th level Rogue can casually disembowel a bear with a swift stroke (okay, depends on HP, but you get my point), and no matter the circumstances, will not perform badly on their select skills.

I mean, that's obviously not something anyone can do. It's special. It's magic, in a much more wondrous sense of the word.

No one gets to level 20?

Yeah, I think that's number one problem. Most people play 1-10 and it's rather easy to give cool things to lower level martials.

If your defining feature is being X number of commoners (with money), I think you can do better on the cool scale.

Or just being a level 3 fighter who does things more times per day... There was no growth and no cool stuff outside what you did at level 3.

The inclusion of cool stuff l doesn't mean you have to use said cool stuff. You can stick with the bare bones. No one makes you play a wizard after all, so no one would make you play the quadratic martial either. So, there is no reason to not have it if people want it. The people who don't want to play it can just not play it.

And if you think it will make battles take too long... Get rid of all the casters too.