PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Infantry vs Cavalry (Brainstorming)



GalacticAxekick
2017-02-08, 11:34 PM
Working on 5e Fighter homebrew, I'm trying to make a greater variety of roles viable besides tanking and DPS. What's more, I'm trying to make the Fighter an all-inclusive warrior, so that instead of selecting a Knight/Samurai/Duelist/etc subclass, you'd select equipment and features with the flavour or mechanics you need for your goal. It borrows a lot from the Warlock's Eldritch Invocations, the 3.5e Fighter's Fighter Bonus Feats, and the Pathfinder Path of War disciplines.

This lot of overhaul, but easily the biggest road block I'm hitting is mounts

Mounts aren't accessible at 1st level, unless you're rolling gp and buying equipment. But in that exact case, you may not have the gp for more expensive equipment a rider might want. An early knight build is investing about 110 gp in weapons and armour (chainmail, shield, lance, longsword). An early samurai is investing 165 (chainmail, scimitar, longsword, longbow).

At the same time, I couldn't include a horse as a starting equipment option. Offer choices like two weapons vs one weapon and a shield or light vs medium vs heavy armour works, because different builds will take different options as appropriate. There's no item, and no set of items, I could fairly offer as an alternative to a horse, because armour and weapons need to come with the horse, and adventuring gear is so much cheaper than the horse that everyone would pick the horse every time.

My half-solution was hey, don't treat the horse as equipment. At level 1, similar to a Warlock's Pact Boon, the Fighter could choose between martial doctrines: Infantry, Navy and Cavalry

Cavalry would grant a horse, but also let that horse grow with the Fighter, much like a Ranger's animal companion. It's a bit counter-intuitive to grant a feature along with a free mount, but if I granted a mount alone, it'd be ideal to pick Infantry/Navy and save up for a mount later. The feature makes cavalry worthwhile.
Navy would almost certainly gain some situational benefits, like climbing/swimming speeds, prolonged breath-holding, etc. Care should be taken to prevent them from becoming too ranger-like, but overall this should be simple to spec, because Navy has its own niche where it's obviously better than Cavalry and Infantry.
Infantry is troublesome. I can't think of any bonuses I'd grant to infantry that wouldn't apply to fighters in general, but something must be offered to makes this option contend with the other two.

This is where you come in. Basically I'm asking what features could I give infantry Fighters to contend with Navy and especially Cavalry Fighters? I need mounts to be accessible, but if I do so, I need unmounted combat to be competitive

wheatbyproducts
2017-02-09, 06:08 AM
A mount is very powerful in open terrain - the mounted combatant feat makes it even more so.
However, a mount is a severe detriment in difficult terrain, especially heavy woods or rocky hills, and they can rarely go into dungeons.

You might take inspiration from various types of specialized infantry - sappers (combat engineers who specialize in destroying enemy fortifications) or skirmishers (highly mobile troops who specialize in disrupting enemy operations) come to mind.

GalacticAxekick
2017-02-09, 12:00 PM
A mount is very powerful in open terrain - the mounted combatant feat makes it even more so.
However, a mount is a severe detriment in difficult terrain, especially heavy woods or rocky hills, and they can rarely go into dungeons.

You might take inspiration from various types of specialized infantry - sappers (combat engineers who specialize in destroying enemy fortifications) or skirmishers (highly mobile troops who specialize in disrupting enemy operations) come to mind.Nice! This is a great start.

Now am mount's weakness in difficult terrain and confined spaces is significant, but hypothetically a Cavalry Fighter could just dismount and being on a level playing field with Infantry Fighters if that ever become a problem. I'll need features to make Infantry truly superior in these circumstances.

Ideas that come to mind are immunities to difficult terrain, new mobility options (moving as a reaction?), and fine manipulations (destroying/building fortifications, medic work, ???) that wouldn't be feasible from horseback. But that's all quite general. Do you have any specific ideas?

Sharur
2017-02-09, 01:40 PM
Alternatively, you could make a more invasive home-brew, making the fighter into a dual-archetype class, like the aforementioned Warlock, but have them spread out throughout the leveling process rather in one go, so the fighter would get Martial Doctrine bonuses / abilities in a addition to archetype features.

I would change some of the fighter class features into Infantry Martial Doctrine features through out. Action surge, certainly, possibly Indomitable. Perhaps also the fighting style at level two, with calvary being locked into their own mount-based fighting style or styles?

Calvary styles/features could include things like:
-Charging Bonuses
-Ride-by attacks
-Trampling

Personally, I wouldn't include a true "Naval" option, other that "Naval Infantry", i.e. Infantry Fighter with the Sailor background. Anything else would be a) full of highly situational abilities (which I try to avoid) and b) stepping on the ranger's toes.

The issue I have with separate styles for Infantry is I feel that generally, the fighter as is, is your heavy infantry if Strength-based. Skirmishers sound like Rangers and Dex-based Fighters, while Sappers are more like Rogues.

TD;DR: I don't think anything special needs to be given to Infantry; rather I think things from the core fighter should be taken away from Calvary. Calvary is a specialization, so they lose that which they're not regularly using.