The Revised Fighter, Revised [PEACH]

[GalacticAxekick]

After a new player at my table became very bored of saying "I approach" and "I attack" every turn, I've revived an old project: The Revised Fighter (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BJ5IloNre). Inspired by Darkest Dungeon's concept of Combat Skills and Camping Skills, this version of the fighter chooses two archetypes instead of one.

The first archetype, called a Fighting Style, describes the fighter's primary contribution to combat. I've finished four fighting styles (Brawling, Dueling, Sharpshooting, Speedshooting) and have no plans to write any more.

The second archetype, called an Occupation, describes the fighter's primary contribution outside of combat. None of these are finished, but the four I plan to write are the Commander, Herald, Medic and Scout.

I'd appreciate your input on what I have so far, and your ideas for how to handle the occupations!

[Trandir]

My first question would be: why homebrew instead of switching class? Fighter is meant to be basic and simple, and even then Cavalier, Eldritch Knight, Battle Master and Arcane Archer all provide some more depth to the "I attack" routine.

And the hombrewery page is broken. Some features are off page and others are scattered. You might want to fix that.

[GalacticAxekick]

My first question would be: why homebrew instead of switching class? Fighter is meant to be basic and simple, and even then Cavalier, Eldritch Knight, Battle Master and Arcane Archer all provide some more depth to the "I attack" routine.Because if he switches classes, my player wouldn't be a fighter.

My player didn't play a fighter because he liked the mechanics. He played a fighter because he liked the theme. He liked the idea of being an intelligent warrior whose combination of technical skill and tactical wits trumped the brute force of enemy champions, the unfair odds against enemy skulkers, and the supernatural powers of enemy spellcasters. Think Captain America.

Paladins, Rangers, Eldritch Knights and Arcane Archers might have more flexibility than the base fighter, but their spellcasting comes with thematic baggage sets them apart from merely "trained warriors". My player disliked playing the Paladin and didn't bother with the others for this reason.

Barbarians and Rogues come with less baggage, and can be easily passed off as "trained warriors," but share the Fighter's lack of versatility. "I approach and I attack".

The Cavalier and the Battle Master are the best we've got, but I'd like to do better, thus this project.


And the homebrewery page is broken. Some features are off page and others are scattered. You might want to fix that.EDIT: There are no features off page on my screen, and so I'm not sure what to adjust. Let me know which features are off page, and I'll adjust their text to fit them.

That said, I'm aware of the the scattered features, and they are intentional. I intend to illustrate the features a fighting style gains at each level, and so I've left spaces next to each set of 1st, 3rd, and 7th level fighting style features. For example, I intend to sketch three scenes next to Power Attack, Cleave, & Hold the Line respectively. One of a fighter in plate swing his greatsword overhand, towards a flinching bandit. Another of the same fighting swinging his greatsword in a circle, through two bandits. And a third of the same fighter holding his greatsword at the ready as additional bandits approach.

[Old Harry MTX]

I like the idea of two specializations, it remind me of a things that I ve started to develop time ago, in which every character choose two classes instead of one, one for combat and one for non combat situations.

Anyway, the page of the homebrewery seem broken to me too, maybe is a browser issue. Can you try to write it in a post? So we can also quote it better.

[Trandir]

Because if he switches classes, my player wouldn't be a fighter.

My player didn't play a fighter because he liked the mechanics. He played a fighter because he liked the theme. He liked the idea of being an intelligent warrior whose combination of technical skill and tactical wits trumped the brute force of enemy champions, the unfair odds against enemy skulkers, and the supernatural powers of enemy spellcasters. Think Captain America.

Paladins, Rangers, Eldritch Knights and Arcane Archers might have more flexibility than the base fighter, but their spellcasting comes with thematic baggage sets them apart from merely "trained warriors". My player disliked playing the Paladin and didn't bother with the others for this reason.

Barbarians and Rogues come with less baggage, and can be easily passed off as "trained warriors," but share the Fighter's lack of versatility. "I approach and I attack".

The Cavalier and the Battle Master are the best we've got, but I'd like to do better, thus this project.


I think that your player saw a theme that the base Fighter lacks entirely. The Fighter is just a master of the battlefield that can use any weapon or armor and with great stamina and offensive power. What you described could be played with a Thief Rogue with the use item as a Bonus Action and all the base class to back it up.



EDIT: There are no features off page on my screen, and so I'm not sure what to adjust. Let me know which features are off page, and I'll adjust their text to fit them.

That said, I'm aware of the the scattered features, and they are intentional. I intend to illustrate the features a fighting style gains at each level, and so I've left spaces next to each set of 1st, 3rd, and 7th level fighting style features. For example, I intend to sketch three scenes next to Power Attack, Cleave, & Hold the Line respectively. One of a fighter in plate swing his greatsword overhand, towards a flinching bandit. Another of the same fighting swinging his greatsword in a circle, through two bandits. And a third of the same fighter holding his greatsword at the ready as additional bandits approach.

The class table, ASI, indomitable and extra attack are off page. If the scatter nature is intentional then it's not a problem (even tho the pfficial material does not make those zig zags with the class features).

Now for the revised fighter:

I am not a fan of the new distribution of the class features but that's me.

Power Attack has that weird restriction but I can see why you put it there. It's really strong since you get basically unimited hex/hunter mark 1st level.

Cleave it's intresting. At 1st level it's hard to say since your attacks would deal an average of 13 damage (assuming average damage and a great weapon and 16 in Str) so you would likely kill nothing with half damage but something with your regular attack. At 5th level you have to hit at least 5 targets to make this thing worth it since you get your second attack. From 11th level you need 4 enemies to make this worth it and from 17th you get a better capstone than the Drunken Master, you might reconsider that one.

Hold the Line is "you can ready the Cleave action", thing that I think should already be allowed by RAW, but broken. Ith neither uses your reaction nor has any limits at higher levels. You shouldn't be able to hit all the creatures. Also does this work like PAM that if a creature enters your reach you can cleave it? If yes that is even more broken than I thought, if not this could have some niche uses.

Improved Grapple and Shove are good. Not broken but they help a bit. Stunning Blow is broken. You can use your off-hand attack to trade 1d4+1d6 for a critical hit for your rogue or paladin.

Why does Power Through exists? For those very few low magic campaing where the fighter can't get a magic weapon by 7th level? Also what's the theme behind your attacls mimicing the magical properties of an enchanted weapon.


Precise Strike gest 0/10 for misleading name. You trade precision for damage with Precise Strike? Also this is almost always a bad trade.

En Garde kind of breaks what reedied actions are supposed to do. You are not reading an action you are entering a stance. You basically get do do your action outside of your turn rather than preparing for something. The effects are ok tho.

Lunge is ok, but what can you do? You can run away from an enemy so you are never within his reach? Also this doesn't use your reaction.

Riposte can't work. Reading an action and performing said action consumes your reaction so by using En Garde you can't use your reaction sonce it's aready spent. Anyway no you shouldn't get this at all you are basically giving +3-5 AC to anyone for 0 resources since you are getting back the attacks afterwards.

Evasion is the only Dex based thing here and makes little sense as to why it's there.

Sharpshooter good. You are better off ignoring this.

Volley Fire turns your longbow into a granade luncher and Cloud of Missles into a caltrop luncher. It's fine.

How does Many Shots interact with advantage and disadvantage?



Overall the rework takes away the variety of the Fighter and replaces it with different flavors of Battle Master, somethimes weak somethimes strong and sometimes with broken interactions.

If you plan on giving your player an apex fighter homebrew a subclass that mixes the Samurai and the Battlemster this is cluded with problems.

[GalacticAxekick]

I think that your player saw a theme that the base Fighter lacks entirely. The Fighter is just a master of the battlefield that can use any weapon or armor and with great stamina and offensive power. What you described could be played with a Thief Rogue with the use item as a Bonus Action and all the base class to back it up.What I described wouldnt rely on items besides weapons and armour: just technical skill and tactical wit.

A Thief using its action to attack and its bonus action to use items is not representative of a squire escorting his liege across the battlefield, dedicated totally to parrying and deflecting incoming attacks.

Or of a guardsman holding back a crowd as they flood the palace gates, stopping each in its tracks with a thrust of his spear, a blow from its pommel, or shove or even a chokehold.

Or of an archer raining arrows over the battlefield, shepherding foes together so they can be executed en masse


The class table, ASI, indomitable and extra attack are off page. If the scatter nature is intentional then it's not a problem (even tho the pfficial material does not make those zig zags with the class features).I'll look into this shortly.


Power Attack has that weird restriction but I can see why you put it there. It's really strong since you get basically unimited hex/hunter mark 1st level.I balanced it against the monk's martial arts. 3d6+3 (13.5) from a brawler's greatsword isn't much more than 1d8+1d4+6
(13) from a monk's quarter staff.

But I completely forgot about two weapon fighting! I'll need to consider that.


Cleave it's intresting. At 1st level it's hard to say since your attacks would deal an average of 13 damage (assuming average damage and a great weapon and 16 in Str) so you would likely kill nothing with half damage but something with your regular attack. At 5th level you have to hit at least 5 targets to make this thing worth it since you get your second attack. From 11th level you need 4 enemies to make this worth it and from 17th you get a better capstone than the Drunken Master, you might reconsider that one.1st level works as intended. Like the monk, or any two-weapon fighting build (dealing 1d6+3 or 6.5 damage to two targets), the 1st level brawler can split 13 damage between two targets (6.5 each)

Starting at 5th level, you'll need to Cleave 4 targets to match the damage extra attacks deal. But if your goal is simply to hit a large number if targets, Cleave is a powerful tool. It can finish off a group of weak creatures, or (together with Stunning Blow) stun a whole crowd of creatures you dont want to deal with yet.

11th level Cleave remains useful for this reason.

And 17th level Cleave, despite being very powerful, is limited by the fact that you still provoke opportunity attacks. Drunken Masters dont have to worry about that.


Hold the Line is "you can ready the Cleave action", thing that I think should already be allowed by RAW [...]If you readied the Cleave action, you would hit targets who are already within your reach.

But Hold the Line does something entirely different. It ignores the targets just standing around in your reach and hits targets that either enter your reach or move within it.


[...] but broken. It neither uses your reaction nor has any limits at higher levels. You shouldn't be able to hit all the creatures. Also does this work like PAM that if a creature enters your reach you can cleave it? If yes that is even more broken than I thought, if not this could have some niche uses.It does work like PAM. It does not hit all the creatures. Enemies already in your reach won't be hit unless they move.


Improved Grapple and Shove are good. Not broken but they help a bit.Yeehaw


Stunning Blow is broken. You can use your off-hand attack to trade 1d4+1d6 for a critical hit for your rogue or paladin.Stunned creatures dont provoke critical hits. Only paralyzed creatures do.

Your rogue or paladin wont gain anything but advantage on one attack roll.

Stunning Blow is meant to stop loving creatures in their tracks, break concentration, hold back crowds, and generally solve problems that damage alone does not.


Why does Power Through exists? For those very few low magic campaing where the fighter can't get a magic weapon by 7th level? Also what's the theme behind your attacls mimicing the magical properties of an enchanted weapon.Mechanically, yes: it is meant to help fighters confront magical threats without magic weapons. I have only ever played one game wherein magic weapons were common enough for most players to have one at 7th level.

Thematically, it represents the fighter learning to crush, pierce and slash through seemingly impenetrable defenses using improved techniques.


Precise Strike gest 0/10 for misleading name. You trade precision for damage with Precise Strike? Also this is almost always a bad trade.You gain advantage (precision) on melee attacks (strikes). Is that misleading?

You also gain the option to give it this advantage in exchange for 1d6 extra damage: an option that encourages the player to see alternative sources of advantage.


En Garde kind of breaks what reedied actions are supposed to do. You are not reading an action you are entering a stance. You basically get do do your action outside of your turn rather than preparing for something. The effects are ok tho.I used the word "ready" but it isnt the Ready action. En Garde is an action of it's own. I'll change the word if it causes confusion.


Lunge is ok, but what can you do? You can run away from an enemy so you are never within his reach? You can run up to your remaining speed towards an ally before parrying or deflecting an attack directed at it. You can run up to your remaining speed towards an enemy before reposting it. You can run out of the area of a fireball before it can affect you. You can stand up immediately after you are knocked prone.


Also it doesnt use your reaction
It isnt supposed to use your reaction. As long as you have movement left over, you can Lunge.


Riposte can't work. Reading an action and performing said action consumes your reaction so by using En Garde you can't use your reaction sonce it's aready spentRe: En Garde does not use the Ready action.


Anyway no you shouldn't get this at all you are basically giving +3-5 AC to anyone for 0 resources since you are getting back the attacks afterwards.You gain ONE attack back afterwards.

At 3rd level this is approximately the same as getting the Defensive Duelist feat. Using your action and reaction, you gain +3 AC and make one attack.

But starting at 5th level, every parry after the first costs you your attack. You only have one reaction, so you can only riposte once.

The Riposte is no stronger than the Defensive Duelist feat.


Evasion is the only Dex based thing here and makes little sense as to why it's there.Mechanically, evasion discourages area effects and forces enemies to face the duelist directly. Thematically, the duelist favours defense above all else.


Sharpshooter good. You are better off ignoring this.Yeehaw


Volley Fire turns your longbow into a granade luncher and Cloud of Missles into a caltrop luncher. It's fine.YEEHAW


How does Many Shots interact with advantage and disadvantage?It doesnt. It ignores them entirely.

[Trandir]

What I described wouldnt rely on items besides weapons and armour: just technical skill and tactical wit.

A Thief using its action to attack and its bonus action to use items is not representative of a squire escorting his liege across the battlefield, dedicated totally to parrying and deflecting incoming attacks.

Or of a guardsman holding back a crowd as they flood the palace gates, stopping each in its tracks with a thrust of his spear, a blow from its pommel, or shove or even a chokehold.

Or of an archer raining arrows over the battlefield, shepherding foes together so they can be executed en masse


Yes but nor is the fighter. A



I'll look into this shortly.

I balanced it against the monk's martial arts. 3d6+3 (13.5) from a brawler's greatsword isn't much more than 1d8+1d4+6
(13) from a monk's quarter staff.

What. You are comparing a monk with that thing? No that's not right you get extra attacks and the clas itself gives plenty of opportunity to do so. The extra damage is broken.




But I completely forgot about two weapon fighting! I'll need to consider that.

1st level works as intended. Like the monk, or any two-weapon fighting build (dealing 1d6+3 or 6.5 damage to two targets), the 1st level brawler can split 13 damage between two targets (6.5 each)

Starting at 5th level, you'll need to Cleave 4 targets to match the damage extra attacks deal. But if your goal is simply to hit a large number if targets, Cleave is a powerful tool. It can finish off a group of weak creatures, or (together with Stunning Blow) stun a whole crowd of creatures you dont want to deal with yet.

11th level Cleave remains useful for this reason.

And 17th level Cleave, despite being very powerful, is limited by the fact that you still provoke opportunity attacks. Drunken Masters dont have to worry about that.

If you readied the Cleave action, you would hit targets who are already within your reach.

But Hold the Line does something entirely different. It ignores the targets just standing around in your reach and hits targets that either enter your reach or move within it.

It does work like PAM. It does not hit all the creatures. Enemies already in your reach won't be hit unless they move.


Ok the whole thing is overtuned then.



Yeehaw

Stunned creatures dont provoke critical hits. Only paralyzed creatures do.


My bad. Still too good.



Your rogue or paladin wont gain anything but advantage on one attack roll.

Stunning Blow is meant to stop loving creatures in their tracks, break concentration, hold back crowds, and generally solve problems that damage alone does not.


And it's too good.



Mechanically, yes: it is meant to help fighters confront magical threats without magic weapons. I have only ever played one game wherein magic weapons were common enough for most players to have one at 7th level.

Thematically, it represents the fighter learning to crush, pierce and slash through seemingly impenetrable defenses using improved techniques.


Honestly I do not aggre but everyone has a right to have an opinion. Also if you run very low magic settings then this is fine balancewise.




You gain advantage (precision) on melee attacks (strikes). Is that misleading?


I am sorry I thought that you had any restrain while balancing the rework and forgot an "if" making that situational. Advantage at all times is the most bromen thing that I have ever seen. The samurai gets a weaker version of this (works also with ranged weapons but consumes a bonus action and has limited uses) at 3rd level amd you give this at all times for free? This is honestly the most broken thing I have ever seen given out. And you get this at 1st level.



You also gain the option to give it this advantage in exchange for 1d6 extra damage: an option that encourages the player to see alternative sources of advantage.


See above. Broken as I don't even know what.




I used the word "ready" but it isnt the Ready action. En Garde is an action of it's own. I'll change the word if it causes confusion.

Even more broken stuff.




You can run up to your remaining speed towards an ally before parrying or deflecting an attack directed at it. You can run up to your remaining speed towards an enemy before reposting it. You can run out of the area of a fireball before it can affect you. You can stand up immediately after you are knocked prone.

It isnt supposed to use your reaction. As long as you have movement left over, you can Lunge.

Re: En Garde does not use the Ready action.

You gain ONE attack back afterwards.



One attack bacl still broken.




At 3rd level this is approximately the same as getting the Defensive Duelist feat. Using your action and reaction, you gain +3 AC and make one attack.


Yes but you are getting that for free while also getting showered in class features.



But starting at 5th level, every parry after the first costs you your attack. You only have one reaction, so you can only riposte once.

The Riposte is no stronger than the Defensive Duelist feat.


I don't thinl that you should make the fighter this complex. This is now a weird class that acts during the opponet turns.



Mechanically, evasion discourages area effects and forces enemies to face the duelist directly. Thematically, the duelist favours defense above all else.


A duelist favours quick strikes and parries with whatever the offhand holds (sometimes the gauntlet is enough) not dodging fireballs like a monk.





All in all I thibk that the whole thing is broken. Some fighting styles are OP, broken and went againt 5e design.

You would have an esier time designing a subclass rather than reworking a class that doesn't need that. Or homebrew some feats or go look for the UA job feats if you want some flavour in your fighter. I hope that your player finds something that satisfy those requirements but this rework isn't the solution.

[Frozenstep]

Base fighter:

You moved some stuff around. Not much to really talk about until it's all together.

Fighting style for combat mechanics, occupation for utility/healing in and out of combat? I kind of like the idea. It might lead to some combinations being more optimal then others if you don't do it right, though. The more you lean on occupations mostly giving out of combat options the easier it will be.


Fighting styles in general:

In the context of 5e and multi-classing, these are a bit weird. I mean, I'm ok with the idea of a fighting style granting more features, but then can you multi-class to ranger to pick up archery to get another +2 to hit? In a vacuum though, I like the idea of a fighting style granting more features. It could do for a magic style though, so eldritch knight isn't just deleted.

While I like the idea of martial features that block concentration, allowing for stronger martial features that don't break when given hunter's mark or something, having it be there from level 1 is...it breaks some multiclassing ideas that I think deserve to exist, like the barbarian who at least studied proper forms. I also think an extra 1d6 is a bit too much, it's an average of 3.5 while dueling as it normally is only adds 2 and that number doesn't get doubled by a crit either. I see you're balancing it against monk but...that's a class with less hp, AC, and multi-attribute dependence.


Brawling:

Cleave: Kind of odd. Starts out kinda meh, then if you're using a polearm or have bugbear arms, can be really strong at 5th level? You might want to consider a suitable way to keep reach weapons from getting crazy, like not allowing the cleave to work at 10 feet unless there's nothing within 5 feet.

Stunning blows is broken. All I need to do is hit a creature once, and then my wizard friend can land disintegrate guaranteed? No resource, no save? I mean, yeah, it's not always going to mean a guaranteed disintegrate, but I think it's dangerous design. How does it interact with legendary actions? At least requiring a save would be a good start.

Power through is...appropriate, but not nice design. I personally am not a fan of features that vary in strength depending on how generous the DM is with items.


Dueling:

Free advantage? From a level 1 feature? Please no. Makes great weapon master too good. Even without it, it reduces the value of certain features like mastermind ranged help action, wolf totem barbarian, faerie fire from druids/bards. Making teamwork less valuable is not nice design.

En garde is...not ideal design. Basically it always makes sense to use it, because at worst you can use it right before your next turn comes or before an enemy can take their turn. But then you need to remember to use it. 5e tries not to have too much happening on other players or monsters turns, for good reason.

Lunge is even worse in that regard. Remembering how much movement you have left, and being able to split it up over as many turns as you want...too much for a player to keep track of. Also, it makes line-based spells and effects really terrible against you. I don't think it's good design because it's way too good in certain scenarios and useless in others.


Sharpshooter:

Similar issues with dueling

Trick shooting is kind of cool, but it doesn't define what destroying the projectile means.


Speedingshooting:

Kind of strange thematically, just because if I have a heavy crossbow I can normally only attack once per turn with, but then a volley or cloud of missiles an area, I'm suddenly shooting countless projectiles? Though I guess saying it's some sort of shrapnel explosion would make sense.


Other ideas:

I think you could do to reduce the power of the fighting styles a bit, and then reintroduce maneuvers from battle master to base fighter, but with only one or two really basic maneuvers to start out with (like second wind being a maneuver...). Then each fighting style could add combat maneuvers that are appropriate (menacing attack for brawler, for example), and each occupation could add non-combat maneuvers that are appropriate (Herald? Can add maneuver dice to performance roll or something). Maybe a utility-type combat ability if it makes enough sense (commander's strike for...commander. Rallying cry for herald?).


Wrong. Stunned creatures as paralyzed creatures are incapacitated. And it's the incapacitated condition that provides the Coup the Grace opening. Also this is a knock your opponent prone with no save. This feature is broken on ao many levels that it looks like a huge pile of rubble.

Incapacitated means you can't take actions or reactions. It is not unconscious or paralyze, which both specify the critical condition. Hell, Incapacitated creatures can still move (but incapacitated is basically only inflicted as a sub-status of other status effects, which all specify the creature has 0 speed or can't move)

[Trandir]

Incapacitated means you can't take actions or reactions. It is not unconscious or paralyze, which both specify the critical condition. Hell, Incapacitated creatures can still move (but incapacitated is basically only inflicted as a sub-status of other status effects, which all specify the creature has 0 speed or can't move)

My bad, I'm gonna correct that immediately.

[GalacticAxekick]

Fighting style for combat mechanics, occupation for utility/healing in and out of combat? I kind of like the idea. It might lead to some combinations being more optimal then others if you don't do it right, though. The more you lean on occupations mostly giving out of combat options the easier it will be.I'll be careful to focus on out-of-conbat options. Thanks!


In the context of 5e and multi-classing, these are a bit weird. I mean, I'm ok with the idea of a fighting style granting more features, but then can you multi-class to ranger to pick up archery to get another +2 to hit? In a vacuum though, I like the idea of a fighting style granting more features.I certainly thought of this project in a vacuum, and will need to either adjust it or adjust other classes accordingly when I bring it to my table.


It could do for a magic style though, so eldritch knight isn't just deleted.
I intentionally left a spellcasting style out because its impertinent to my player's complaint. If he wants magic options, he can play the EK, AA, Paladin or Ranger.


While I like the idea of martial features that block concentration, allowing for stronger martial features that don't break when given hunter's mark or something, having it be there from level 1 is...it breaks some multiclassing ideas that I think deserve to exist, like the barbarian who at least studied proper forms. Every fighting style except the Sharpshooter gets a 1st level feature that doesn't block concentration (Cleave & Hold the Line, En Garde, Volley Fire). A Barbarian-Brawler, for example, would gain the power to Cleave through a crowd even while raging.

I can look into giving the Sharpshooter a similar feature at 1st level.


I also think an extra 1d6 is a bit too much, it's an average of 3.5 while dueling as it normally is only adds 2 and that number doesn't get doubled by a crit either. I see you're balancing it against monk but...that's a class with less hp, AC, and multi-attribute dependence.Reasonable! I'll reduce the d6s to d4s.



Cleave: Kind of odd. Starts out kinda meh, then if you're using a polearm or have bugbear arms, can be really strong at 5th level? You might want to consider a suitable way to keep reach weapons from getting crazy, like not allowing the cleave to work at 10 feet unless there's nothing within 5 feet.Reasonable!


Stunning blows is broken. All I need to do is hit a creature once, and then my wizard friend can land disintegrate guaranteed? No resource, no save? I mean, yeah, it's not always going to mean a guaranteed disintegrate, but I think it's dangerous design [...] At least requiring a save would be a good start.I'm wary of requiring an attack roll and a save, because it would suck for a player to land a hit, give up damage to inflict a condition, and then fail to inflict that condition.

But if that what it takes to balance the feature, I'll give it a go.


How does it interact with legendary actions? Presumably, a stunned creature cant take Legendary actions.


Power through is...appropriate, but not nice design. I personally am not a fan of features that vary in strength depending on how generous the DM is with items. Sensible! I didnt realize magic items were so common in other people's games.

Ill try to come up with an alternative.



Free advantage? From a level 1 feature? Please no. Makes great weapon master too good. It might be thematically appropriate and mechanically safe to make Precise Strike impossible with two-handed weapons.


Even without it, it reduces the value of certain features like mastermind ranged help action, wolf totem barbarian, faerie fire from druids/bards. Making teamwork less valuable is not nice design. If a Duelist already has advantage, Precise Strike can be used to grant bonus damage. I included that clause specifically to make the Mastermind, the Wolf Totem, Faerie Fire and similar features remain valuable.


En garde is...not ideal design. Basically it always makes sense to use it, because at worst you can use it right before your next turn comes or before an enemy can take their turn. But then you need to remember to use it. 5e tries not to have too much happening on other players or monsters turns, for good reason.

Lunge is even worse in that regard. Remembering how much movement you have left, and being able to split it up over as many turns as you want...too much for a player to keep track of. Understandable. If not acting and moving on other creatures' turns, what other bodyguarding and aggro-drawing tools could I give the fighter.



Also, it makes line-based spells effects really terrible against you. I don't think it's good design because it's way too good in certain scenarios and useless in others. That's kinda what I like about it! Having answers to some situations but not others is what makes tactical decisions meaningful. "The vigilante easily evades most effects. But if we could catch him in a narrow alley..." u

If it was the only 3rd lebl feature, being situational would suck. But with Riposte as a mainstay, I dont mind Lunge being less reliable.



Trick shooting is kind of cool, but it doesn't define what destroying the projectile means.Objects have hp and AC just like creatures. I dont want a feature to suggest every arrow, axe and javelin is equally easy to break. But I can add a note with some typical object stats (similar to the net description)


Kind of strange thematically, just because if I have a heavy crossbow I can normally only attack once per turn with, but then a volley or cloud of missiles an area, I'm suddenly shooting countless projectiles? Though I guess saying it's some sort of shrapnel explosion would make sense."Because of the time required to load [a weapon with the loading property], you can fire only one piece of Ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make."

You cannot Volley or Cloud of Missiles using a crossbow.


I think you could do to reduce the power of the fighting styles a bit, and then reintroduce maneuvers from battle master to base fighter, but with only one or two really basic maneuvers to start out with (like second wind being a maneuver...). Then each fighting style could add combat maneuvers that are appropriate (menacing attack for brawler, for example), and each occupation could add non-combat maneuvers that are appropriate (Herald? Can add maneuver dice to performance roll or something). Maybe a utility-type combat ability if it makes enough sense (commander's strike for...commander. Rallying cry for herald?).My biggest gripe with the manoeuvre system is that most manoeuvres attach old tools and bonus damage to your attacks instead of actually offering you new tools. They increase the base fighter's power, but dont actually increase the variety of roles ot can play.

For example, Trip Attack knocks a creature prone (something a fighter could already do) and deals bonus damage (something a fighter could already do).


I would much rather an attack that does something totally new. An alternative to knocking prone, and an alternative to dealing damage. That's how I came up with Stunning Blows.

~~~

Disarming Attack, Distracting Strike, Evasive Footwork, Feinting Attack, Lunging Attack and Precision Attack all share this problem.


Goading Attack, Maneuvering Attack, Menacing Attack and Pushing Attack are more unique, but held back by being attached to ordinary attacks. If not for that, they could be made more powerful and vivid, or used without spending a resource. This is why I wrote Improved Shove (and Improved Grapple to go with it).

Parry is cool too, but scales poorly at higher levels when enemies gain more attacks, and only helps nearby allies. This is why I wrote En Garde and Lunge.

Rally is great and will be adapted for the Herald.

Riposte is boring in a vacuum (essentially spend a resource to deal damage) but necessary when I adapted Parry to cost your action.

Sweeping Attack was adapted into Cleave, the goal being to turn it into an area control tool instead of a strictly superior attack.

[Frozenstep]

Every fighting style except the Sharpshooter gets a 1st level feature that doesn't block concentration (Cleave & Hold the Line, En Garde, Volley Fire). A Barbarian-Brawler, for example, would gain the power to Cleave through a crowd even while raging.

True, but it's still a loss (compared to the usual fighting style you'd get from a 1 level fighter dip) that hurts a bit. Maybe I'm too attached to supporting multi-class ideas that aren't gamey warlock dips.


Reasonable! I'll reduce the d6s to d4s.

Close enough, it'll work.


I'm wary of requiring an attack roll and a save, because it would suck for a player to land a hit, give up damage to inflict a condition, and then fail to inflict that condition.

I call certain things "dangerous design" when they put you into a situation where, when you go to balance them, you find you're weighing gold coins against credit cards. That is, your balance points no longer make sense and can't be done in a nice way.

One way this happens is when you give something a "good" part that is so good that you have to give it a "bad" part to help balance it out, but then the good and the bad aren't comparable enough. For an extreme example, say I wanted to give fighter an action that could instantly behead a creature, killing them instantly even if they were full health. To balance that out, obviously this ability needs to have a massive downside, so I have to give it an insane hit penalty, or maybe only works against certain types of enemies or in certain situations, costs health, etc. But then it likely ends up as a super big gamble that's not practical to try, or maybe an ability that's sometimes insanely good but then completely useless otherwise...but that doesn't really make for a well-balanced and fun character.

So, back on topic...see, monks having stunning strike, but then they risk not inflicting the condition and spending a resource that could have been used on more damage (flurry of blows). On top of that, they target literally the worst possible saving throw to target, constitution. This is already treading close to dangerous design...the "good" of possibly inflicting stun, potentially breaking boss fights, tries to be tempered by being risky and then costing resources that other class features use. Already, stunning strike can be a bit of a controversial thing, with some who think it's overpowered and the only reason monks aren't completely worthless, and others who think other features have more consistent value and are better usages of ki.

So what am I saying here? +(Stun on attack roll) -(do no damage, weak stun) isn't a safe balance point, especially as an at-will ability.

I think a much safer balance point would be to drop the stun to something like preventing targets from taking reactions, and a con save or have disadvantage on all attacks next turn. Is that strong enough? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that you can then tip the scales more without breaking things and find a better balance point.


It might be thematically appropriate and mechanically safe to make Precise Strike impossible with two-handed weapons.

I still wouldn't use advantage, even if it's only for one handed weapons. I've always seen advantage as the "reward". Getting it requires a little thought, maybe some planning, or some risk taking. A wizard decides if it's worth using his spell slot to try to restrain targets for his allies, or who is worthy of greater invisibility. A barbarian thinks whether using reckless attack is worth it, because in many cases he'll take more attacks at advantage then he gets to deliver if he uses it. Getting an enemy prone might require giving up an attack to make a roll. A rogue needs to consider where they can hide. The point is, you do something to get it, which makes you enjoy it more.


If a Duelist already has advantage, Precise Strike can be used to grant bonus damage. I included that clause specifically to make the Mastermind, the Wolf Totem, Faerie Fire and similar features remain valuable.

Advantage is a huge deal. Nearly double the critical chance, +5 to hit in many scenarios. +1d6 damage is a much, much smaller thing, and it's less rewarding to give to allies and less worthy of their spell slots, builds, and actions.


Understandable. If not acting and moving on other creatures' turns, what other bodyguarding and aggro-drawing tools could I give the fighter.

Now that I think about it, protecting allies isn't really what I think about when I think duelist, but whatever. The main point is your reaction should be for things you actually do outside your turn, but you could still provide passive effects, such as providing allies within your reach half cover at the cost of an attack, with a reaction to improve it to 3/4th cover against a single attack/saving throw. Potentially turning to always-on 3/4th's cover at level 7? And riposte could simply allow reaction attacks against enemies that miss attacks on allies within your covered area.

Defensive value for more allies and against more attacks, but at a greater cost to offense. But much simpler to handle.


That's kinda what I like about it! Having answers to some situations but not others is what makes tactical decisions meaningful. "The vigilante easily evades most effects. But if we could catch him in a narrow alley..." u

If it was the only 3rd lebl feature, being situational would suck. But with Riposte as a mainstay, I dont mind Lunge being less reliable.

Having an answer for one situation that's so good that it's not worth considering others makes tactics less meaningful, I'd counter.

I personally dislike design the results in features that are too specific, and then way too good in those specific situations. As a DM, I recently designed an enemy that basically swings their sword to send elemental attacks in 5 foot lines. This class would walk all over them, dodge 6 of them at once. I'd either have to contrive a situation that may challenge player immersion (Player: "These alleyways are only 5 feet across? Really DM? Are you designing these just to screw me over?"), adjust the plans I had that used them, or adjust the monster.

I don't want to do that. I like it when players have a lot of choices, and some of those choices are better. I like it when sometimes the choices they have are better suited for the situation and they realize they can take advantage of it. But if they had a silver bullet, a perfect choice for this situation...well, as a DM I'd feel obligated to throw it at them once so they could be happy with it, then avoid it from then on so that they don't keep having autowin battles that are boring.

Now, it's a bit of a big fuss about a feature that, for the most part, isn't going to be destroying encounters on its own, but every detail counts when considering good design.

I think a more balanced version would see the level 3 version allowing you to move half your speed or so as a reaction to being in an AoE, and gaining advantage on the save should you end the movement outside the AoE. Perhaps at level 7, escaping a dexterity AoE means automatically passing the save (which of course means 0 damage).


Objects have hp and AC just like creatures. I dont want a feature to suggest every arrow, axe and javelin is equally easy to break. But I can add a note with some typical object stats (similar to the net description)

That'd be perfect.


"Because of the time required to load [a weapon with the loading property], you can fire only one piece of Ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make."

You cannot Volley or Cloud of Missiles using a crossbow.

Makes sense.


My biggest gripe with the manoeuvre system is that most manoeuvres attach old tools and bonus damage to your attacks instead of actually offering you new tools. They increase the base fighter's power, but dont actually increase the variety of roles ot can play.

True, a lot of maneuvers are flawed, but I think having a resource means you can do some things that would be too strong as at-will options. Stuff like commander's strike or rally are unique and could be built upon and handed out, perhaps to occupations for non-violent maneuvers.


For example, Trip Attack knocks a creature prone (something a fighter could already do) and deals bonus damage (something a fighter could already do).

I would much rather an attack that does something totally new. An alternative to knocking prone, and an alternative to dealing damage. That's how I came up with Stunning Blows.

Disarming Attack, Distracting Strike, Evasive Footwork, Feinting Attack, Lunging Attack and Precision Attack all share this problem.

I think it's fine if some options make doing specific things you could already do more efficient. Yes, you can trip enemies without trip attack by using a shove, but your enemy can defend with strength or dexterity instead of being forced to make a strength saving throw and you lose the attack. It makes the option more attractive so that it's practical to use more often, helping create an identity for the character. "My fighter is a guy who uses a halberd and likes to trip people up with it when he fights, and he's good at it. Much better then any other fighter who didn't also learn a similar technique."

Anyway, in all my criticism I have forgotten to mention some other thoughts worth sharing.

I actually really like cleave, it's a surprisingly simple implementation of an ability I thought more martial classes should have. The thought of spin attacking through a horde of enemies at level 17 is hilarious.

Volley fire is pretty cool and I think it works well as an at-will non-magical AoE option. It's a little strange flavor wise, but it's still cool. I especially like what you might be able to do tactically with cloud of missiles. The criticals on volley would be pretty brutal...

[GalacticAxekick]

True, but it's still a loss (compared to the usual fighting style you'd get from a 1 level fighter dip) that hurts a bit. Maybe I'm too attached to supporting multi-class ideas that aren't gamey warlock dips.Would it be a reasonable concession to make features that scale with the Fighter's Extra Attacks (Cleave, Volley Fire) scale with any class's Extra Attacks?


[...]So what am I saying here? +(Stun on attack roll) -(do no damage, weak stun) isn't a safe balance point, especially as an at-will ability.

I think a much safer balance point would be to drop the stun to something like preventing targets from taking reactions, and a con save or have disadvantage on all attacks next turn. Is that strong enough? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that you can then tip the scales more without breaking things and find a better balance point.My concern isnt that these effects are weak, but that they dont significantly expand the brawler's role.

Stunning Blows is what makes the brawler a controller and not just a striker. By stopping moving creatures, denying reactions, or breaking concentration, the brawler can remove a problem from the battle and tip the scales in her party's favour.

If stunning is too powerful an effect to balance, how about incapacitating the target until the start of its next turn?

This would achieve all three key effects (stop movement, break concentration, prevent reactions), without risking spikes in power (Disintegration setups, crit fishing, skipping enemy turns)

Id rename the feature to avoid association with the Stunned condition. Maybe the obscure but appropriate "Mordhau" or the straightforward "Knock Senseless".


I still wouldn't use advantage, even if it's only for one handed weapons. I've always seen advantage as the "reward". [...] The point is, you do something to get it, which makes you enjoy it more.I cant argue that earning advantage isnt more fun than just having it. My concern with using a static bonus (say, a +2) is that the Duelist and Sharpshooter would no longer synergize with the Rogue.

Thematically, that synergy creates space for some character archetypes the 5e doesnt support: iaijutsu practicionsers who lunge forth to cut enemies down in one slash; marksmen who make deadly shots at the drop of a hat; Fighters (trained warriors who dont rely on unfair odds) who deal Rogue-style damage.

Mechanically, Rogues need Sneak Attacks just to keep up with other classes, but struggle to make them at low levels. a Rogue's situational 1d8+1d6+3 (11) damage is sad compared to the monk's consistent 1d8+1d4+6 (13), the barbarian's consistent 2d6+5 (12), etc.


Advantage is a huge deal. Nearly double the critical chance, +5 to hit in many scenarios. +1d6 damage is a much, much smaller thing, and it's less rewarding to give to allies and less worthy of their spell slots, builds, and actions. I actually ran the numbers on this when I first started this project!

Advantage essentially gives you a second attack roll in case your first one misses. The bonus it grants is equal to your odds of missing (the odds of the second roll be necessary) multiplied by your odds of hitting (the odds of the second roll being useful)

If you have a 50% chance to hit, you have a 50% chance to miss. Advantage will be equivalent to 25% bonus to hit (aka +5) and a +2.5% chance to crit.

But if you have a 90% chance to hit, you have a 10% chance to miss. Advantage will be equal to a 9% bonus (aka +2) and a +0.5% chance to crit.

Multiply that bonus to hit by your attack's damage and you get an idea of how helpful advantage is. Compare that to an ordinary attack roll with +3.5 damage and you get an idea of how advantage compares to a free 1d6 damage.

For a 1st level fighter, depending on your choice of weapon, advantage is superior if the enemy has about 15 or more AC (aka a 50% chance to hit or less). Of the enemy has less AC than that, 1d6 damage is superior.

As your attack rolls (aka your odds to hit) grow, the AC where advantage is useful climbs too. With +11 to hit, advantage is only superior to 1d6 against targets with about 20 AC or more.

Advantage feels great! But it honestly isnt that strong.


Now that I think about it, protecting allies isn't really what I think about when I think duelist, but whatever.Mechanically, this is to avoid redundancy. I had two fighting styles--the Defender and the Duelist--that specialized in defending others and defending themselves respectively. When I noticed that they required a lot of the same features ("give up attacks to defend", "retaliate against an attacker", "reposition on another creatures turn"), I rolled them into one.

Thematically, consider the overlap between duelists and bodyguards in fiction. The thin line between samurai and yojimbo. Or between swashbucklers and damsel-saving knights. Boxers in the ring vs bouncers at the door. These heroes all share a skillset: alertness, agility, and the power to swipe harm from the air.


The main point is your reaction should be for things you actually do outside your turn, but you could still provide passive effects, such as providing allies within your reach half cover at the cost of an attack, with a reaction to improve it to 3/4th cover against a single attack/saving throw. Potentially turning to always-on 3/4th's cover at level 7? And riposte could simply allow reaction attacks against enemies that miss attacks on allies within your covered area.

Defensive value for more allies and against more attacks, but at a greater cost to offense. But much simpler to handle.This is actually a much lesser cost to your offense.

I wrote parry to grant one target between +3 and +5 AC against one attack at the cost of one attack. Your feature grants any targets within reach between +2 and +5 against any attacks before the start of your next turn, still at the cost of one attack.

And besides balance, I dont like the idea of it being totally passive. Being able to choose who is worth defending and what is worth defending against is, to me, the fun.

I might rewrite En Garde to resemble the Abjurer's Ward. "As a Duelist, you have the capacity to parry and deflect otherwise deadly attacks. Your defense is represented by a pool of hit points equal to two times your Fighter level + your Strength or Dexterity modifier.

When an attack passes through your reach before hitting its target, you can choose for your pool to take the attack's damage instead.

When an effect reduces your pool to 0 hit points, the original target takes any remaining damage. Your pool is also reduced to 0 hit points when you are incapacitated, and replenished only when you use your action to do so."


Having an answer for a situation that's so good that it's not worth considering others makes tactics less meaningful, I'd counter. [...]Fair enough!


I think a more balanced version would see the level 3 version allowing you to move half your speed or so as a reaction to being in an AoE, and gaining advantage on the save should you end the movement outside the AoE. Perhaps at level 7, escaping a dexterity AoE means automatically passing the save (which of course means 0 damage).An earlier version of the Duelist used its reaction to Lunge. But Lunge is responsible for a few different things (moving towards a melee attack to parry it, moving into the path of a ranged attack to deflect it, moving into an area effect to block it, escaping an area effect, kipping up after being knocked prone, moving towards an attacker to riposte them). And I couldn't possibly write so many triggers for one reaction.

On the other hand, if I let players use their reaction to move without a specific trigger, I would be offering free movement. My solution was for Lunge to use leftover movement instead of a reaction.

If I have to make Lunge a reaction, it's most important functions are to work with En Garde and Riposte. But then, as long as Riposte is a reaction, they cant work together. So I'll edit Lunge to say something like "when a target outside of your reach would benefit from your En Garde, you can use your reaction to move up to half your speed towards it."


True, a lot of maneuvers are flawed, but I think having a resource means you can do some things that would be too strong as at-will options. Stuff like commander's strike or rally are unique and could be built upon and handed out, perhaps to occupations for non-violent maneuvers.I'm definitely adapting the non-violent manoeuvres to fit occupations.


I think it's fine if some options make doing specific things you could already do more efficient.[...]Its certainly alright! But its besides the goal of this project: expanding the range of things a fighter can do. Unless I write a large number of new manoeuvres, the manoeuvre system takes up design space that could go to more pertinent features.


I actually really like cleave, it's a surprisingly simple implementation of an ability I thought more martial classes should have. The thought of spin attacking through a horde of enemies at level 17 is hilarious. Nice to know!


Volley fire is pretty cool and I think it works well as an at-will non-magical AoE option. It's a little strange flavor wise, but it's still cool. I especially like what you might be able to do tactically with cloud of missiles. The criticals on volley would be pretty brutal...Is Volley strange flavour wise? Its just an archer/dart thrower/javelineer/etc loosing a large number of projectiles over a wide area.

[Frozenstep]

Would it be a reasonable concession to make features that scale with the Fighter's Extra Attacks (Cleave, Volley Fire) scale with any class's Extra Attacks?

Doesn't hurt, I suppose. I dunno though, maybe you could add a line where the 1d6 extra damage is replaced with +1 to damage rolls if the user is concentrating/raging.


My concern isnt that these effects are weak, but that they dont significantly expand the brawler's role.

Stunning Blows is what makes the brawler a controller and not just a striker. By stopping moving creatures, denying reactions, or breaking concentration, the brawler can remove a problem from the battle and tip the scales in her party's favour.

If stunning is too powerful an effect to balance, how about incapacitating the target until the start of its next turn?

This would achieve all three key effects (stop movement, break concentration, prevent reactions), without risking spikes in power (Disintegration setups, crit fishing, skipping enemy turns)

Id rename the feature to avoid association with the Stunned condition. Maybe the obscure but appropriate "Mordhau" or the straightforward "Knock Senseless".

Much better, but incapacitate could still destroy legendary action systems that bosses need to stay dangerous. Also stopping movement until the start of their next turn...wouldn't really do anything? I get what you're going for here, though. You're definitely fine taking away reactions on hit. Stopping movement on their next turn completely might be a bit much, but cutting enemy movement by a fixed amount would be very reasonable. Breaking concentration I'm not sure about, but disadvantage would be too weak since the attack doesn't do damage. Either way, this can be thought about more and changed now, it's in a much better place.


I cant argue that earning advantage isnt more fun than just having it. My concern with using a static bonus (say, a +2) is that the Duelist and Sharpshooter would no longer synergize with the Rogue.

Thematically, that synergy creates space for some character archetypes the 5e doesnt support: iaijutsu practicionsers who lunge forth to cut enemies down in one slash; marksmen who make deadly shots at the drop of a hat; Fighters (trained warriors who dont rely on unfair odds) who deal Rogue-style damage.

You could just use swashbuckler for iajutsu/trained fighters. Deadly marksmen was already covered by archery fighting style +2 to hit, and that's already probably the best fighting style. +2 to hit from archery already synergizes with rogue pretty well. Dual wielding could be better in general


Mechanically, Rogues need Sneak Attacks just to keep up with other classes, but struggle to make them at low levels. a Rogue's situational 1d8+1d6+3 (11) damage is sad compared to the monk's consistent 1d8+1d4+6 (13), the barbarian's consistent 2d6+5 (12), etc.

The difference is rogue gets to do that damage at long range (80 feet). More then monk or barbarian would do at that range, if they have a melee partner next to their target. Alternatively, they're a melee rogue, in which case they could be dual wielding for 1d6 + 3 + 1d6 + 1d6 (13.5), and their damage is more consistent because they have two attacks and whichever one hits gets the +1d6 sneak attack. Sneak attack is situational, but in practice they often end up dealing sneak attack damage every round as long as they don't miss because melee party members want to be in melee, giving them the 5 foot ally option.

After level 2, they can just bonus action, hide, and then attack. Little bit of DM fiat here, but generally this means they can make ranged attacks at advantage every round if the environment allow


I actually ran the numbers on this when I first started this project!

Advantage essentially gives you a second attack roll in case your first one misses. The bonus it grants is equal to your odds of missing (the odds of the second roll be necessary) multiplied by your odds of hitting (the odds of the second roll being useful)

If you have a 50% chance to hit, you have a 50% chance to miss. Advantage will be equivalent to 25% bonus to hit (aka +5) and a +2.5% chance to crit.

But if you have a 90% chance to hit, you have a 10% chance to miss. Advantage will be equal to a 9% bonus (aka +2) and a +0.5% chance to crit.

Multiply that bonus to hit by your attack's damage and you get an idea of how helpful advantage is. Compare that to an ordinary attack roll with +3.5 damage and you get an idea of how advantage compares to a free 1d6 damage.

For a 1st level fighter, depending on your choice of weapon, advantage is superior if the enemy has about 15 or more AC (aka a 50% chance to hit or less). Of the enemy has less AC than that, 1d6 damage is superior.

As your attack rolls (aka your odds to hit) grow, the AC where advantage is useful climbs too. With +11 to hit, advantage is only superior to 1d6 against targets with about 20 AC or more.

Advantage feels great! But it honestly isnt that strong.

In practice landing the hit is more valuable then doing some more theoretical damage because the extra damage might be overkill or not make a difference over whether the next hit kills or not. We could also go into a whole thing about how adventurers spend a lot of their career hitting things with like 60~70% accuracy at the levels people play at a lot, which advantage is still very good for, but let's not.


Mechanically, this is to avoid redundancy. I had two fighting styles--the Defender and the Duelist--that specialized in defending others and defending themselves respectively. When I noticed that they required a lot of the same features ("give up attacks to defend", "retaliate against an attacker", "reposition on another creatures turn"), I rolled them into one.

Thematically, consider the overlap between duelists and bodyguards in fiction. The thin line between samurai and yojimbo. Or between swashbucklers and damsel-saving knights. Boxers in the ring vs bouncers at the door. These heroes all share a skillset: alertness, agility, and the power to swipe harm from the air.

That's fair.


This is actually a much lesser cost to your offense.

I wrote parry to grant one target between +3 and +5 AC against one attack at the cost of one attack. Your feature grants any targets within reach between +2 and +5 against any attacks before the start of your next turn, still at the cost of one attack.

And besides balance, I dont like the idea of it being totally passive. Being able to choose who is worth defending and what is worth defending against is, to me, the fun.

I might rewrite En Garde to resemble the Abjurer's Ward. "As a Duelist, you have the capacity to parry and deflect otherwise deadly attacks. Your defense is represented by a pool of hit points equal to two times your Fighter level + your Strength or Dexterity modifier.

When an attack passes through your reach before hitting its target, you can choose for your pool to take the attack's damage instead.

When an effect reduces your pool to 0 hit points, the original target takes any remaining damage. Your pool is also reduced to 0 hit points when you are incapacitated, and replenished only when you use your action to do so."

I like that idea. A single resource would be much easier to keep track of. You could play with the idea further, letting the pool be refilled to some degree by giving up attacks (you'll have to balance it out with the idea that the player would always enter combat with it filled up, though. The pool would probably need to scale differently)


An earlier version of the Duelist used its reaction to Lunge. But Lunge is responsible for a few different things (moving towards a melee attack to parry it, moving into the path of a ranged attack to deflect it, moving into an area effect to block it, escaping an area effect, kipping up after being knocked prone, moving towards an attacker to riposte them). And I couldn't possibly write so many triggers for one reaction.

On the other hand, if I let players use their reaction to move without a specific trigger, I would be offering free movement. My solution was for Lunge to use leftover movement instead of a reaction.

If I have to make Lunge a reaction, it's most important functions are to work with En Garde and Riposte. But then, as long as Riposte is a reaction, they cant work together. So I'll edit Lunge to say something like "when a target outside of your reach would benefit from your En Garde, you can use your reaction to move up to half your speed towards it."

Yeah, I think writing lunge to be a part of other reactions would make be the simplest and most elegant design.


I'm definitely adapting the non-violent manoeuvres to fit occupations.

Its certainly alright! But its besides the goal of this project: expanding the range of things a fighter can do. Unless I write a large number of new manoeuvres, the manoeuvre system takes up design space that could go to more pertinent features.

Fair enough then.


Is Volley strange flavour wise? Its just an archer/dart thrower/javelineer/etc loosing a large number of projectiles over a wide area.

Chalk it up to DnD's setting, where non-casting characters are usually mundane until they're not.

[Yakk]

I'd propose a rotation. Keep the same fighting styles as the base fighter:

Archery
Defense
Dueling
Great Weapon Fighting
Protection
Two-Weapon Fighting
Adept (baby Battlemaster)
Arcane (baby Eldrich Knight; gain 2 wizard cantrips)

At 3/7 offer "improved fighting style", where you get a benefit based off one of the fighting styles you know.

That would mesh more smoothly with multiclassing, as someone has noted.

Advanced Fighting Styles:

Brawler (requires: Great Weapon Fighting or Defence)

Weapon Master (requires: Dueling or Two-weapon Fighting or Protection)

Sharpshooter (requires: archery - combine with speedshooting)

Battlemaster (requires: adept)

Eldritch Knight (requires: arcane)

I'm saying to combine the Sharpshooter+Speedshooter because "fighter with a bow" is an evocative archtype, but "this guy shoots fast, this guy shoots accurately" is a bit futzy.

BM and EK are two of the fighter subclasses that deserve to be rescued. EK might need revision a bit (as it stands it is a bit overly defensive-focused), but BM is solid.

---

I'd also replace the name Occupation with Profession. It sounds more martial, and less like going to an office.

[GalacticAxekick]

I'd propose a rotation. Keep the same fighting styles as the base fighter [...] At 3/7 offer "improved fighting style", where you get a benefit based off one of the fighting styles you know. That would mesh more smoothly with multiclassing, as someone has noted.I love the elegance of this solution to the multiclassing problem, but it comes with two problems:

One is that it denies playstyle defining features at 1st level. Brawlers need to wait until 3rd level to Cleave and Hold the Line. Duelists need to wait until 3rd level for En Garde. Speedshooters need to wait until 3rd level to fire. The goal of this project is to creature round-to-round options, and so I don't want every 1st and 2nd level fighter to make one attack, make one attack, make one attack...

The second problem is that it pigeonholes certain subclasses into uses certain weapons, even if those weapons have nothing to do with their theme. The brawling style, for example, does not represent anyone who specializes in heavy melee weapons. It represents anyone who specializes in front-line crowd control. A viking warrior whirling a greataxe; a knight toting sword and shield; an armoured barroom fistfighter: they all practice this style, but not all of them rely on Great Weapon Fighting or Defence.

Similarly, the dueling style does not represent anyone who specializes in lighter, finer weapons and shields. It represent anyone who specializes in occupying a single target on the front lines. A samurai warrior parrying and riposting with his rival using his nodachi (greatsword); a squire bodyguarding his liege with a spear and shield; a martial arts master swiping blows from the air with his open hands: they all practice this style, but not all of them rely on Dueling, Two-Weapon Fighting or Protection.


I'm saying to combine the Sharpshooter+Speedshooter because "fighter with a bow" is an evocative archtype, but "this guy shoots fast, this guy shoots accurately" is a bit futzy.I strongly agree! As long as you don't think Trick Shots, Cloud of Missiles and Storm's Eye aren't too many features for 3rd level, I can roll these two archetypes together.


BM and EK are two of the fighter subclasses that deserve to be rescued. EK might need revision a bit (as it stands it is a bit overly defensive-focused), but BM is solid.If a player wants to use either of those two archetypes, they can just play the original versions. Because neither of those archetypes achieve what this homebrew project is trying to achieve, it would be a waste of effort to include them.


I'd also replace the name Occupation with Profession. It sounds more martial, and less like going to an office.Done!