The Adventurer [5e Generic Extraordinary Class]

[Deleted]

Rough Draft 1.5!

http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H1ZEqOCW7g

Best viewed with Chrome, though Firefox seems to work well enough.

Current Archetypes

Archer
Assassin
Bandit
Barbarian
Crusader
Desperado
Druid
Knight
Magician
Monk
Rambler
Ranger
Sniper
Soldier
Thief
Thrower (needs a better name... Maybe The Throh?)

Notes

A few friends kindly suggested (re: not kindly at all) that I rename this to "Adventurer". I like it, it reminds me of BESM.

Got rid of the fluffy social stuff, the document cleans up better without it being with the archetypes themselves. I will be making a page at the end of the document and putting all the social impacts there.

Axes and Polearms have the same mastery, but not transcend mastery, however the difference is that Polearms have reach and Axes can be used with a shield or even dual wielded so it should work out well for both.

Added a new Feat that grants you a second archetype (other classes can take it to gain 1 archetype, but that might change). You don't get both archetypes at once, you pick which primary and secondary feature you want for the day and go with it. During a short rest you may change your secondary feature.

====

Example Characters

By using a d6, d8, d10, d12, and a d20 you can actually make a random character. Roll for each choice that you gain, using the first option as 1 and going from there (reroll any roll that doesn't have a feature associated with that number)...

Funny enough, I made Captain America on my first try...

• Lightly Armored
• Shields
• Soldier
• Pack Tactics
• Improved Indomitable

Second character is... Kinda scary O_O

• Heavily Armored
• Heavy Blade
• Beserker
• Hide in Plain Sight
• Magical Bulwark

Third character is... Naked guy, who is strength and cha based. Tries to be a sniper but sucks at it, so he goes beserk and beats enemies to death with his bare hands while howling like a madman.

• Unarmored
• Unarmed
• Sniper
• Primal Howl
• Combat Swagger

[GalacticAxekick]

I'm a huge fan of martial classes, so at a nice this looks fun! But I have to ask, why call it the commoner? There's a pretty strong connotation of a commoner being a materially unskilled labourer or professional: a cobbler, farmer, merchant, librarian, maybe a militia or thug, but certainly not a skilled warrior, mighty barbarian or cunning rogue.

I'd call this class the Fighter if that weren't already a class. "Martial" is what I'd go with as is

[Deleted]

I'm a huge fan of martial classes, so at a nice this looks fun! But I have to ask, why call it the commoner? There's a pretty strong connotation of a commoner being a materially unskilled labourer or professional: a cobbler, farmer, merchant, librarian, maybe a militia or thug, but certainly not a skilled warrior, mighty barbarian or cunning rogue.

I'd call this class the Fighter if that weren't already a class. "Martial" is what I'd go with as is

Thanks :)

To answer your question about "why commoner", well, because all the Fighter Barabrian and Rogue (three prime martials) really are... Are really really good commoners. They are commoners that have stopped being ordinary and became extraordinary. They are essentially commoners with class levels, a level 0 barbarian would just be a commoner.

Take a commoner, put them in armor and have them swing a sword. They are a (somewhat bad) fighter, but can still function as one. Put that same commoner in wizard robes and tell them to cast a spell... They can't even begin to do it, they can't function as a really bad wizard as they don't have the base qualifications (non-racial magic).

Plus, this is not only a class, but a social rank. The archetypes will have some fluff about social rank and how they have improved (or hurt) their social rank by making that choice. Raising your social rank in the eyes of the law can be good when dealing with governments, but bad when dealing with the black market and people of ill gains. (I just realized I didn't ut much about this in the post above, oops).

If I come across a term that I like, I might change it.

[GalacticAxekick]

Thanks :)

To answer your question about "why commoner", well, because all the Fighter Barabrian and Rogue (three prime martials) really are... Are really really good commoners. They are commoners that have stopped being ordinary and became extraordinary. They are essentially commoners with class levels, a level 0 barbarian would just be a commoner.

Take a commoner, put them in armor and have them swing a sword. They are a (somewhat bad) fighter, but can still function as one. Put that same commoner in wizard robes and tell them to cast a spell... They can't even begin to do it, they can't function as a really bad wizard as they don't have the base qualifications (non-racial magic).

Every class is a commoner with class levels. A wizard is a commoner who studied magic. A fighter is a commoner who studied the tools of war. I can't stress enough that class represents a character's skills, and a commoner is defined by their lack of class skills.

For instance, a commoner dropped into a suit if armour is not a fighter. Not even close. Nor is a wizard dropped into a suit of armour, or a druid, or a bard. Because anyone can wear armour. It's equipment, not skill. It's loadout, not class.

But a commoner who learns to fence or swashbuckle or joust is becoming a fighter, and will remain so even when disarmed. These skills are as foreign to a commoner as magic spells, after all. And unlike equipment, they are now part of the character.

Plus, this is not only a class, but a social rank. The archetypes will have some fluff about social rank and how they have improved (or hurt) their social rank by making that choice. Raising your social rank in the eyes of the law can be good when dealing with governments, but bad when dealing with the black market and people of ill gains. (I just realized I didn't ut much about this in the post above, oops).

I don't think it's too good an idea to conflate class and rank. Class obviously influences rank--a wizard has will be seen differently than a cobbler--but this is setting specific and often very character specific. Assigning social baggage to a set Iif abilities really just restricts the class. This is why the alignment requirements for paladin, monks and druids were removed, after all.

[Deleted]

Every class is a commoner with class levels. A wizard is a commoner who studied magic. A fighter is a commoner who studied the tools of war. I can't stress enough that class represents a character's skills, and a commoner is defined by their lack of class skills.

For instance, a commoner dropped into a suit if armour is not a fighter. Not even close. Nor is a wizard dropped into a suit of armour, or a druid, or a bard. Because anyone can wear armour. It's equipment, not skill. It's loadout, not class.

But a commoner who learns to fence or swashbuckle or joust is becoming a fighter, and will remain so even when disarmed. These skills are as foreign to a commoner as magic spells, after all. And unlike equipment, they are now part of the character.

I don't think it's too good an idea to conflate class and rank. Class obviously influences rank--a wizard has will be seen differently than a cobbler--but this is setting specific and often very character specific. Assigning social baggage to a set Iif abilities really just restricts the class. This is why the alignment requirements for paladin, monks and druids were removed, after all.

In game, class means something. Saying "that barbarian over there" has certain stereotypes and associated ideologies with it. I want to take advantage of that so that you don't get that awkward disconnect of "what's a fighter, that isn't an in-game term".

Think Europe/Japan and how the Knights/Samurai were an occupation and also a social class.

On the wizards are commoners... Nope. If you can use magic, you are anything but common. The average person cannot use magic at all. That is something that happens because you are special for one reason or another. Though I will be changing some fluff/mechanics (cantrips come at level 1 and subclass at level 2) magic-users will be a seperate class and social status. Much like how orce sensitive children don't stay commoners in Star Wars (well before order 66...) they were picked up and became a totally different social class than their families (which how creepy would that be... A dude shows up and "asks" for your kid to be trained in their cult). By birth these children are just different than the common person.

Actually I think I'll be stealing some fluff from star wars to add into my D&D games...

A commoner in a suit of armor has an 18 AC and a weapon that they can swing for whatever their strength score modifier is. With enough of these commoners you can take out many threats (bounded accuracy and crits). Get an infinity commoners together to cast a spell... You will be waiting for a very long time for that spell to happen.

Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues are just proficient commoners. Magic-Users are an entirely different beast all together.

Like Batman and Superman. Batman is just a common person who is very very proficient with what he does. Superman was born with natural advantages that makes him anything but common. It isn't that he has to try in order to be above everyone else, he just is. His brain is naturally faster and without working out, his body is just stronger. Even if superman stayed a farmer, he would never be a commoner.

Random Note: This means that Shazaam is a warlock (blade pact but uses unarmed strikes?) lol.

[GalacticAxekick]

In game, class means something. Saying "that barbarian over there" has certain stereotypes and associated ideologies with it. I want to take advantage of that so that you don't get that awkward disconnect of "what's a fighter, that isn't an in-game term".

Maybe we just play differently, but my take is the opposite. The barbarian class describes the skills set of someone who uses brute might, haste and fortitude in lieu of warrior skill. It applies to bloodthirsty marauders, sure, but also to many soldiers, reputed gladiators, mercenaries, and even cultured, educated officers who happen to prefer strength over finesse. Barbarian is a class, but not an occupation or social role to me. I would hate if it was.

Think Europe/Japan and how the Knights/Samurai were an occupation and also a social class.

I'm aware. But I would be against a knight class with social baggage to match. If I want to play a knight, I'll play a fighter (to gain the skill with plate and certain weapons), take the Noble background and discuss with the DM what my standing is in the setting. Class is only part of the final knight: the skills.

Ditto samurai

On the wizards are commoners... Nope. If you can use magic, you are anything but common. The average person cannot use magic at all. That is something that happens because you are special for one reason or another. Though I will be changing some fluff/mechanics (cantrips come at level 1 and subclass at level 2) magic-users will be a seperate class and social status. Much like how orce sensitive children don't stay commoners in Star Wars (well before order 66...) they were picked up and became a totally different social class than their families (which how creepy would that be... A dude shows up and "asks" for your kid to be trained in their cult). By birth these children are just different than the common person.

While it may be the case in your settings that no common person can become a wizard, 5e only describes a wizard as a student of magic. Nowhere does it suggest they are specially gifted, like force-sensitives. You seem to be thinking of sorcerers, which are the only class at all with innate power.

A commoner in a suit of armor has an 18 AC and a weapon that they can swing for whatever their strength score modifier is. With enough of these commoners you can take out many threats (bounded accuracy and crits). Get an infinity commoners together to cast a spell... You will be waiting for a very long time for that spell to happen.

You'll be waiting just as long for these commoners to master fighting styles, multiattacks, action surges or second winds.

Again, using armour or a sword is not what defines a fighter. Legitimate skill with the tools of combat is. Anyone--literally anyone with or without a class and regardless of class-- can wear armour and swing a sword. But in the same way only a wizard and no commoner can study and master spells, only a fighter and no commoner can study and master weapon arts. It's in learning these things that a class level is gained.

Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues are just proficient commoners. Magic-Users are an entirely different beast all together.

Both martial classes and spellcasters are all would-be commoners who found some greater potential through some power or another, be it training, study, or the help of a higher power.

Like Batman and Superman. Batman is just a common person who is very very proficient with what he does. Superman was born with natural advantages that makes him anything but common. It isn't that he has to try in order to be above everyone else, he just is. His brain is naturally faster and without working out, his body is just stronger. Even if superman stayed a farmer, he would never be a commoner.

Except no 5e classes work like superman here. Wizards and bards study to gain magic: they're just average before that. Clerics, warlocks and druids borrow magic from higher powers: again, they're average until then. Sorcerers do have innate magical potential, but must gain experience to cultivate it, just like working a muscle.

Except sorcerers by a thin margin, there's no difference between a commoner studying to be a wizard or fighter, training to empower their sorcerey or barbaric might, cultivating clerical or ranger attunement, etc.

[Deleted]

Thats the thing about Knights and Samurai, you can't disconnect tgem from their social status as that is a core function of who and what they are.

Calling a Knight a Knight but not giving them social status means they are no longer a knight.

[JNAProductions]

The issue is, Knights are fairly setting specific. You can have all the combat capabilities of a knight, but not the social status. It's fine for YOUR setting, but might not work in another.

[GalacticAxekick]

The issue is, Knights are fairly setting specific. You can have all the combat capabilities of a knight, but not the social status. It's fine for YOUR setting, but might not work in another.

This. A Knight class should provide all the combat capabilities, but shouldn't come with social baggage. If my setting has knights, cool: I'll give knight characters the appropriate social standing. But if my setting doesn't have knights, or if a character otherwise wants to play a non-knight with the same combat capabilities, I can let them do so. This is the benefit of leaving social baggage out. With the baggage, you're only restricting players.

In other words, calling a knight a knight but leaving out the social elements means they aren't in fact a knight, correct! But maybe I have no intention to call my character a knight. Maybe I'm making a bodyguard, or a janissary, or something setting specific that needs the abilities of the "knight" class but not the actual occupation of knight. Nobody in-game can see my character sheet. They don't know or care what my class is called. Class is just a rules system to represent the learning of skills.

[PotatoGolem]

Whether this succeeded or not really depends on your goal. It sounds like from your responses the goal was to make martials more mundane- they're just a guy with a sword, there's nothing special about them. In that, you've succeeded- this is much more bland than anything in the phb except maybe fighter, and less powerful than the existing classes. For an all-caster campaign, where martials are just hirelings, this is a good system. It's essentially a reincarnation of the 3.5 tier system, which many people liked. Just as long as players are clear going in that a commoner is an order of magnitude less powerful than a wizard, cleric, or bard, there shouldn't be a problem

OTOH, if this is supposed to be in a normal campaign and on par with existing classes, it needs a complete rebuild for all the same reasons. (Mainly that it's weak and unexciting )

[Deleted]

The issue is, Knights are fairly setting specific. You can have all the combat capabilities of a knight, but not the social status. It's fine for YOUR setting, but might not work in another.

If you take away the social status of a knight, they are no longer a knight.

But since it's fluff, nothing is stopping you from not using it. It's like alignment, nothing mechanical is tied to it unless you want it to be.

Just because some ppl want to change fluff doesn't mean you shouldn't add fluff and stuff to your homebrew, making stuff devoid of fluff takes away its heart and soul and cheapens the product.

Just think if the ranger had no fluff abilities, that it was given just mechanics, would it still be a ranger? No. People would call it a fighter or rogue. No mention of environment, no mention of the term favored enemy ... Yeah, that would suck.

There is fluff connected to the game already that people change, yet to g hung up on fluff is... Weird.

[Deleted]

Whether this succeeded or not really depends on your goal. It sounds like from your responses the goal was to make martials more mundane- they're just a guy with a sword, there's nothing special about them. In that, you've succeeded- this is much more bland than anything in the phb except maybe fighter, and less powerful than the existing classes. For an all-caster campaign, where martials are just hirelings, this is a good system. It's essentially a reincarnation of the 3.5 tier system, which many people liked. Just as long as players are clear going in that a commoner is an order of magnitude less powerful than a wizard, cleric, or bard, there shouldn't be a problem

Just the opposite. They aren't more mundane, they just acknowledge their mundane roots and show how they have become more than just a simple commoner.

5e Martials are way too mundane BUT I see that aome people like that so I will keep the core of the Commoner as mundane, because that is what they are, but have the extra options go more toward extraordinary.

Combat Expertise and Sneak Attack are already less mundane than what their base 5e classes get. Instead of just *damage* a Rogue can cut or hit in the right places and debilitate a creature.

Combat Swagger allows a character to stop having their martial abilities ignored just because the creature is of a certain size. One of my favorite scenes in Final Fantasy is where your "monk" will suplex the huge monsters (an undead train may be taking it too far, but love it).

Primal Howl will harken to the 4e Barbarian.

Desert Wind (throwing) will make an appearance at some point.

So while their base is mundane, their options are not. At least compared to 5e.

[GalacticAxekick]

If you take away the social status of a knight, they are no longer a knight.

which might be someone's goal: to make a non-knight using the features of your knight class.

But since it's fluff, nothing is stopping you from not using it. It's like alignment, nothing mechanical is tied to it unless you want it to be.

Just because some ppl want to change fluff doesn't mean you shouldn't add fluff and stuff to your homebrew, making stuff devoid of fluff takes away its heart and soul and cheapens the product.

If it's just fluff, no problem. I'd just avoid tying rank to class features.

Just think if the ranger had no fluff abilities, that it was given just mechanics, would it still be a ranger? No. People would call it a fighter or rogue. No mention of environment, no mention of the term favored enemy ... Yeah, that would suck.

Features like favoured enemy and terrain represent the attunement and survival skill, keyword skill, that is definitive of the ranger. Of course they shouldn't be removed. But like a fighter can fit the social niche of a knight, mercenary, thug, duelist and more, the ranger can fit the social niche of a game hunter, bounty hunter, detective, assassin, wilderness protector and more. Just like a feature that restricts your Knight to the status of knight would bother me, one that forces Hunter rangers to be literal hunters would.

There is fluff connected to the game already that people change, yet to g hung up on fluff is... Weird.

Again, no issue with fluff. I have an issue wuth class features assigning a social status mechanically.

[Deleted]

which might be someone's goal: to make a non-knight using the features of your knight class.

If it's just fluff, no problem. I'd just avoid tying rank to class features.

Features like favoured enemy and terrain represent the attunement and survival skill, keyword skill, that is definitive of the ranger. Of course they shouldn't be removed. But like a fighter can fit the social niche of a knight, mercenary, thug, duelist and more, the ranger can fit the social niche of a game hunter, bounty hunter, detective, assassin, wilderness protector and more. Just like a feature that restricts your Knight to the status of knight would bother me, one that forces Hunter rangers to be literal hunters would.

Again, no issue with fluff. I have an issue wuth class features assigning a social status mechanically.

The archetypes are assigning fluff (social status), this is no different than any other D&D game.

Mulmaster for example has arcane magic users as a separate social class. You either joined their little group or died straight up.

Want to see the king in a 3e game? Better have connections, cause that no names barbarian you made that comes from hickville doesn't have the status to request an audience.

Seriously, you (re: everyone) should check out the Binder from 3e's Tome of Magic. The fluff and social status made that class what it is and even brought forth prestige classes based on the fluff/social status of Binders (kill the witch!).

[GalacticAxekick]

Eh.The binder fluff isnt for me. Besides not being terribly interesring imo, fluff that assumes a lot about the setting is almost certainlu getting thrown out in my settings.

But yeah, if the social status of your knight archetypes and so forth is just fluff and not a mechanical cage, no problem.

[Deleted]

Eh.The binder fluff isnt for me. Besides not being terribly interesring imo, fluff that assumes a lot about the setting is almost certainlu getting thrown out in my settings.

But yeah, if the social status of your knight archetypes and so forth is just fluff and not a mechanical cage, no problem.

This is why you and me are having issues lol

The binder (especially the Vestiges) have some of most well written and fantastic fluff in D&D history (one vestige is an illusionist who went so insane he walked into the void).


Without fluff you have bland and boring classes that have no life.

Knights are always knights. They may be part of a Jedi order or be part of a dark ages campaign but when you say Knight, people know what you are talking about.

Without that label it is harder for people to make their character easily. They would have to go through all the mechanics and try to find which one has "Knight" type features (3e Knight and Marshal were fun). Now can you change fluff? Sure, but that's extra work you shouldn't put on playets (making fluff) unless they wamt to make it.

[GalacticAxekick]

This is why you and me are having issues lol

The binder (especially the Vestiges) have some of most well written and fantastic fluff in D&D history (one vestige is an illusionist who went so insane he walked into the void).

Right, and that's not interesting to me. Not by itself, away. How it ties into the setting and character relationships to tell a story or cement a theme is more important to me. I don't think that's bad lore, but it doesn't speak to me personally, and it probably wouldn't suit any of my settings.

Without fluff you have bland and boring classes that have no life.

I think I said a few times that I have no issue with fluff. I like the added colour. My gripe is with restrictions, and for much of this thread I was under the impression you were giving your classes features that would restrict their social options.

Knights are always knights. They may be part of a Jedi order or be part of a dark ages campaign but when you say Knight, people know what you are talking about.

Without that label it is harder for people to make their character easily. They would have to go through all the mechanics and try to find which one has "Knight" type features (3e Knight and Marshal were fun).

Never said I'm against labels, so I don't know why you're explaining this.

Ideally I'd like a free-form system like spellcasters use so you can build your toolset from the ground up; I'd prefer a flexible fighter class over a knight class, for instance. But your homebrew essentially does that, and I never complained that it didn't.

[ChubbyRain]

The Druid and Magician seem a bit heavier on what they can do, I hope the other subclasses are expanded a bit.

The idea of social rank as a means of replacing alignment could work, not that this is what happening, but I like the idea of social rank being tied to subclass. It's something that has always been around but no one really brings forth except for certain classes (like the rogue).

Why is the druid a cha based character?

Splitting up general classes to be more specific subclasses seems to work better than using the term fighter or rogue, those are way too general to be subclasses. Having this continue on the Magic-User would work nicely.

Instead of a Magic-User, I think Psionics based on 3e (names/abilities) would work better as a counter class. Psionics in 4e started with one or two at will and then those at will powers grew (they learned some other stuff too not too much extra stuff). I think you could balance an at-will and at-will/power up type class easier than a daily magic user class and an at-will class... Keep everyone on the same page.

[Deleted]

The Druid and Magician seem a bit heavier on what they can do, I hope the other subclasses are expanded a bit.

The idea of social rank as a means of replacing alignment could work, not that this is what happening, but I like the idea of social rank being tied to subclass. It's something that has always been around but no one really brings forth except for certain classes (like the rogue).

Why is the druid a cha based character?

Splitting up general classes to be more specific subclasses seems to work better than using the term fighter or rogue, those are way too general to be subclasses. Having this continue on the Magic-User would work nicely.

Instead of a Magic-User, I think Psionics based on 3e (names/abilities) would work better as a counter class. Psionics in 4e started with one or two at will and then those at will powers grew (they learned some other stuff too not too much extra stuff). I think you could balance an at-will and at-will/power up type class easier than a daily magic user class and an at-will class... Keep everyone on the same page.

Because the druid and magician aren't primarily focused on their enemies it seems a bit more than others but I still need to work over everyone so thinga may still get updated.

It would be a very flexible alignment system if that is the case. Going from one city to the next could change everything... Like going from Waterdeep to Mulmaster.

I meant that to be a choice between Int and Wis. If you notice the spells that govern nature and survival, the two related skills of herbalism, they are governed by Int and Wis so I want to reflect that. Though, I do think the normal druid should be charisma based caster, they are all about connection with nature and making themselves lovable to nature.

On psionics, I like it. I like it a lot actually. I think my next project will be psionics instead of "magic-user".



====


Subclasses to add...

Archer (bows)
Sniper (crossbow)
Desperado (hand crossbows)
Totemist (barbarian, less rage and more tactics)
Crusader (non-magical Paladin)

[JNAProductions]

Non-magical Paladin... So a Fighter? Because, if we're going with the normal LG, holy warrior Paladin... You can play a devout and righteous Fighter, easy.

[Deleted]

Non-magical Paladin... So a Fighter? Because, if we're going with the normal LG, holy warrior Paladin... You can play a devout and righteous Fighter, easy.

Crusader from 3e could be made without magic but was distinctly different from a fighter, warblade, or other martial classes

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...s-Handbook-WIP

Steely Resolve and Furious Counterstrike were fun mechanics.

If you haven't played 3.5's Tome of Battle, I highly suggest you give it a try. It balanced martials out to tier 3 and gave them something to do rather than "I move and hit".

[Potato_Priest]

What exactly do monk commoners get? do they get the monk class features in addition to their own?

Are you planning to use this as an NPC class, or a player class?

[Deleted]

What exactly do monk commoners get? do they get the monk class features in addition to their own?

Are you planning to use this as an NPC class, or a player class?

Player class.

Monk

Level 1

Defensive Style: Choose one option

Weapon Mastery: Choose one option

Level 2

Archetype: Monk

Martial Arts: For the following features, you may use the higher of your Strength or Dexterity modifier...

• Unarmed attack
• Monk weapon attack
• Use an archetype feature
• Jump
• Determine initiative
• Attempt an athletics and acrobatics check

Deflect Missile: Starting at 2nd level, you can use your reaction to deflect or catch the missile when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take from the attack is reduced by 1d10 + your Dexterity modifier + your commoner level. If you reduce the damage to 0, you can catch the missile if it is small enough for you to hold in one hand and you have at least one hand free.

Note: the monk may replace dexterity mod with strength mod for deflect missiles due to Martial Arts.

===

This is about choices to make. You can make a typical monk or an atypical monk.

I need to add a drunken master to the list eventually.

I will have "quick guides" on how to make simple and fast iconic characters.

Monk
Weapon Mastery: Unarmed (Dual wield unarmed attacks at any time, attacks may be B/P/S)
Defensive Style: Unarmored (10 + Dex + Wis)
Archetype: Monk
Archetype Feature (7th level): Cunning Action
Archetype Feature (10th level): Improved Indomitable

[ChubbyRain]

Still Working

http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H1ZEqOCW7g

Best viewed with Chrome, though Firefox seems to work well enough.

I'm not adding anymore sub-classes until I get what I have to an acceptable level or useful/balance. I think I have a good range of sub-classes that will fit most wants or needs.

Let me know if there is a sub-class that I'm missing, do note that things that are magical like the Arcane Trickster will be under the Magic-User.

Current Archetypes

Archer
Assassin
Bandit
Barbarian
Crusader
Desperado
Druid
Knight
Magician
Monk
Rambler
Ranger
Sniper
Soldier
Thief

You should add in 3 more subclasses... One starting with a "C", one starting with a "K", and one starting with a "T".

Captain (sailor boss), Kraven (wild hunter), and Titan Mauler?

[Deleted]

You should add in 3 more subclasses... One starting with a "C", one starting with a "K", and one starting with a "T".

Captain (sailor boss), Kraven (wild hunter), and Titan Mauler?

Maybe later haha

I do like things being even and in line and all that.

[BoogieFrights]

First off, LOVE the idea. I can't wait to use this for a "normal schmo" game.
But I might just be missing it, but there seems to be nothing for the Mastery section for Heavy Blades.

[Deleted]

First off, LOVE the idea. I can't wait to use this for a "normal schmo" game.
But I might just be missing it, but there seems to be nothing for the Mastery section for Heavy Blades.

Thanks!

A few of the the weapon masteries needed to be remade and a I'm gonna work on them later today. Heavy Blade was actually the same thing as polearms (based around overrun)

I might give overrun back to the heavy blade and give polearms something else...

A lot of this still need to be gone back over an cleaned up, I doubt I have the balance I really want with it. Esepcially the magician. Plus a couple of the archetypes are not completely done or do almost the same thing as another :).

I'm gonna try and clean it up today.

Thanks again and I hope you enjoy using it!

[Morphic tide]

Thanks!

A few of the the weapon masteries needed to be remade and a I'm gonna work on them later today. Heavy Blade was actually the same thing as polearms (based around overrun)

I might give overrun back to the heavy blade and give polearms something else...

A lot of this still need to be gone back over an cleaned up, I doubt I have the balance I really want with it. Esepcially the magician. Plus a couple of the archetypes are not completely done or do almost the same thing as another :).

I'm gonna try and clean it up today.

Thanks again and I hope you enjoy using it!

If Heavy Blade is non-polearm two handed weapons, may I suggest having it be focused on AoE damage/trips? The AoE damage, at least, fits with swords and axes. Maces work with dazing, stunning, tripping and armor-ignoring.

Basically, I'm thinking about stuff like having abilities that let you attack every enemy in the three 5ft squares in "front" of you, extending to fit your reach, making some number of attacks while charging and, at later levels, stuff like hitting everyone on one side of your Charge path in reach and everyone around you in reach.

[Deleted]

If Heavy Blade is non-polearm two handed weapons, may I suggest having it be focused on AoE damage/trips? The AoE damage, at least, fits with swords and axes. Maces work with dazing, stunning, tripping and armor-ignoring.

Basically, I'm thinking about stuff like having abilities that let you attack every enemy in the three 5ft squares in "front" of you, extending to fit your reach, making some number of attacks while charging and, at later levels, stuff like hitting everyone on one side of your Charge path in reach and everyone around you in reach.

I think Heavy Blades will get the Overrun bonus (shows they are heavy and help with getting people the hell out of your way). Like when heroes cut through the enemy lines

I think for polearms, the ability to sweep or push through to target enemies behind would be distinct as they are reach weapons.

Perhaps ignore partial cover. This way when you attack with reach at an enemy behind another they don't get a bonus to their AC.

Some of these and their transcend versions will need to be modified.

All of this makes me wonder where whips are going to land... Might just make a general weapon mastery, something basic that applies to any weapon. Maybe the ability to change your attack roll to a Dexterity save? The dexterity save negates the damage. This will make armored creatures easier to hit but high dex creatures harder to hit, so it's a bit of a trade off (though you would need to be locked in this this attack style I guess...).

[ChubbyRain]

Looking a lot better each time I see it!

Some things I noticed

1) Wording needs to be consistent, some things say "starting at X level" and others don't. I would take out any words you don't really need. On the overcarching description you can leave "at X level" but when describing them you should leave it out.

2) I like the Hide in Plain Sight change.

3) I like that you can multiclass within the archetypes but I don't think that would be very balanced. It may not be broken, it just feels like it could be.

4) I see a little bit of this, but I would love to see even more reliamce on Int, Wow, and Cha. One of my gripes about D&D is that most times Martials have no reason to ever boost mental stats.

That's all for now!