Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Fighter: Samurai, Sharpshooter, Arcane Archer & Knight

I'm getting, like, unhealthy amounts of mad, clicking on that broken link.

 

[MechaPilot]

What about this idea? "If the player can do it, so can the DM."

So yeah. Let me know how awesome the Knight and Sharpshooter subclasses are when your wizard or cleric has been marked by a 12th level Knight with the Mage Slayer feat while your group is getting peppered with arrows from the 12th level Sharpshooter with the Sharpshooter feat (~sigh~) that is doing 3 attacks for 1d8+23 damage per hit. Enjoy!

I've marked PCs before; it's sort of required when you make a 4e villain and want to give him that fighter flavor. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

My problem with this is that it is something that a DM should decide through role-playing. It shouldn't be forced on his NPCs because the player has a mechanic that says he must become enraged (or whatever).

Edit: And again you are looking at it from a player using it on the BBEG. What happens if the BBEG uses it on a player? Do I tell the player, "Nope, I don't care that your character is always calm. My guy made him angry. No saving throw."

I think you have me confused with someone else, as I don't think I have said anything about marking (there are a few people with Mecha in their screen name, so no problem). I freely admit it would be much more appropriate if there was a save (probably wisdom) so the target can overcome the strong emotion, and I plan on saying so in the survey for these fighters. Inflicting an emotion (almost always fear) on someone/thing else is part of the game, and not always from a magical source (see the berserker barbarian's menace ability). And much like all save or suck effects, players tend to love it when their PC's can do it, and hate it when it is done to their PC's.

 

[Ancalagon]

What about this idea? "If the player can do it, so can the DM."

When has that ever not been a thing???

 

[Tony Vargas]

Completely incorrect. My opinion is that there should be options for everyone. What I don't agree with is how these options are being prescribed. In this case, I'd rather see a Knight sub class that is modular and not exclusive to a particular style of play without modification.

A sub-class is prettymuch a modular option, in itself. If you want a non-casting Knight (concept) you can take a Background that touches on it, if you want a mounted-combat-oriented sub-class there's already the Cavalier. (If you wanted your "Knight" to cast spells, you already had the Paladin - including the Oath of the Crown covering a similar function to this one).

With that said, there is no need to be angry. At this rate, I do predict that 4e justice warriors will get their warlord subclass. It's only mater of time now.

Full class.
Close as the Knight archetype gets to the Knight(fighter) it's still miles away from a Weaponmaster(Fighter) - the design space in archetypes just isn't there for more. Though it is a good sign.

 

[Lord Twig]

What about this idea? "If the player can do it, so can the DM."

When has that ever not been a thing???

Yep! That's the point. It has always been a thing. I was just pointing out that we should always look at it from both angles. Not just "Here's what I can do with it!" But also, "Here's what it could do if it was used against me!"

If you wouldn't like the results of the second statement, then it might not be such a good thing after all.

 

[MechaPilot]

Yep! That's the point. It has always been a thing. I was just pointing out that we should always look at it from both angles. Not just "Here's what I can do with it!" But also, "Here's what it could do if it was used against me!"

If you wouldn't like the results of the second statement, then it might not be such a good thing after all.

Players generally don't like their characters taking damage or getting critically hit, or failing saving throws. I'm not convinced that "I wouldn't like if that thing I can also do happened to my character" is a suitable standard.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If you wouldn't like the results of the second statement, then it might not be such a good thing after all.

Why do you assume people won't like the results of the second statement? Isn't combat supposed to be challenging?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yep! That's the point. It has always been a thing. I was just pointing out that we should always look at it from both angles. Not just "Here's what I can do with it!" But also, "Here's what it could do if it was used against me!"

If you wouldn't like the results of the second statement, then it might not be such a good thing after all.

So.... every damage spell in the game?

Petrification
Disintegration
Geas
Hold Person and other Paralyzing effects


Having an enemy scry and throw a meteor swarm on your inn while you are sleeping, then summoning an MArilith to mop up while they teleport away and cast nondetection so you have no way to track them?




But, beyond responding to that... I'm a little disappointed in how cursory and reactionary the discussion on this UA has been.

The biggest parts of the discussion seems to have been the dislike of the names and 4e style marking.

I'm more interesting in trying to figure out how many of the Knights reaction abilities stack into the same hit (I don't think mark and Hold the Line stack at all) than how to explain it. I'll explain it if it ever comes up in plan, if no one at my table wants to play it, I'm not going to worry about it.

Ah well, the conversation will probably die down by Monday like all the other ones have (Anyone else worried that once a week UAs while awesome is too quick of a turn over to get used to and study the different mechanics?)

 

[Tony Vargas]

My problem with this is that it is something that a DM should decide through role-playing. It shouldn't be forced on his NPCs because the player has a mechanic that says he must become enraged (or whatever).

The fun thing is that, in D&D & especially in 5e, the DM decides everything, anyway. Want someone immune to the mark? Make him immune to fear. Don't want him also immune to a spell that causes fear? Make him immune to non-magical fear. Just decide on the spur of the moment that a mark shouldn't work on a given target in a given circumstance? Rule that way.

And again you are looking at it from a player using it on the BBEG. What happens if the BBEG uses it on a player? Do I tell the player, "Nope, I don't care that your character is always calm. My guy made him angry. No saving throw."

Not that a WILL save makes a big difference much of the time (one of the annoying things about modern D&D is that it's way too easy for high level archetypal-hero-type PCs to end up with low WILL/WIS).
But, it doesn't really matter how you conceptualize the mark. It doesn't work against creatures immune to fear, which does imply (unnecessarily, IMHO), that it works on emotions (fear being the only emotion D&D has many mechanics for or immunity to). Your calm character can be calmly 'cautious' of the marking BBEG (and, face it, was probably going to be attacking him anyway, in which case the mark does nothing - I mean, how often is the BBEG there to protect someone else?)

 

[Argyle King]

Not that a WILL save makes a big difference much of the time (one of the annoying things about modern D&D is that it's way too easy for high level archetypal-hero-type PCs to end up with low WILL/WIS).
But, it doesn't really matter how you conceptualize the mark. It doesn't work against creatures immune to fear, which does imply (unnecessarily, IMHO), that it works on emotions (fear being the only emotion D&D has many mechanics for or immunity to). Your calm character can be calmly 'cautious' of the marking BBEG (and, face it, was probably going to be attacking him anyway, in which case the mark does nothing - I mean, how often is the BBEG there to protect someone else?)

It's not uncommon for a BBEG to have a bodyguard.