I think one of the big problems I have with the Battlemaster subclass is that it provides a whole set of actions for only that subclass that arguably should be available to anyone who is skilled with weapons.
The idea that a skilled combatant wouldn't have such basics as parry, riposte, pushing attack, and disarming attack is just beyond silly. I'm sure there are probably others but these seem like the bare minimum. A simple change would be:
* Riposte and Parry become reactions that any trained combatant (ie, martial class) can utilize. However instead of superiority die, parry increases your AC+2 for that attack (at the cost of your reaction) and Riposte increases the damage of your next attack by +2. Battlemasters that specialize in these maneuvers get to add their superiority dice and reroll any 1's. * Pushing Attack and Disarming Attack become new types of attacks that a combatant can use when they pick the attack action (just like shove or grapple). Only battlemasters using these get to add superiority dice damage. Everyone else gets their damage reduced by half and the corresponding effect (save vs strength or get pushed/disarmed).
This would keep battlemasters "special" but would fill a silly hole where skilled combat participants can't do skilled combat stuff.
(I also like the weapon mastery rules but some of this stuff is just so basic - like c'mon anyone that knows how to use a sword should know how to block their opponent's attacks!)
Wizards is happy with base fighter because players are happy with it. Their data consistently shows that “add some Battlemaster features to base Fighter” is rather unpopular among a segment of the population who wants to have simple options (like Champion Fighter) available to them. This was something they reiterated in one of their recent 5.5 play tests.
That is the reality. While many might see the base martial classes as simplistic (myself included), that is by design. There should be a plethora of straightforward options, giving players who want a linear playstyle with little to track options. Fortunately Wizards knows this and ignores the many, many “please make martial more complex” cries. They are - rightfully - going to keep the base martials pretty straightforward and will continue to use subclasses to appeal to those seeking more complexity. After all, you can always add complexity with a subclass - you cannot really take away complexity from a base class.
I don't think you should be fooled by names like "Parry" etc. into thinking that every other combatant in all the DnD universes doesn't know "put my slashy stick in way of opponent slashy stick makes it not hurt". A more accurate name would be something like "Skillfull parry", but that's a mouth full. Every other class just has its parry baked into AC, which of course is an oversimplification, but pretty much everything in the DnD rules is.
Presently, martials can Shove, Grapple, and Attack. I have very rarely seen them Shove, and only occasionally seen them Grapple.
The fact is that if it doesn't do damage, then people don't do it. And to do damage, you attack.
If you add damage to a shove, then until people get multiattack, they will all be shoving, all the time.
As others have said, Fighters are meant to be easy to play, with subclasses making them more interesting, and parrying is part of the "+ dex" of armour class.
For those that say "but some players want simple characters" this would not create any complexity at all for those players. I'd guess most of them don't even know grapple and shove exist, so they could just not know these options exist too.
I don't think anyone would consistently always choose the push attack or disarm attack above because it only does half damage. It would be a viable option to push someone back with your attack.
My experience is that players use grapple regularly and shove less frequently but it still gets used. But I can see if there are players that love the simple Champion fighter then as some tables these don't get used (which is the benefit of this system - it doesn't screw over those of us with interest in playing a rich martial at the expense of keeping the game simple).
Parry is not baked into AC currently. If it was then your AC would change when you pick up a weapon. You could argue that it is baked into HP I suppose (but that just further stretches the HP abstraction).
Had a ponder on this. Not sure if this is what you're looking for but what does everyone think?
Flourishes
Sometimes in life there are things which are just easy. To a skilled swordsman, this can include combat!
Flourishes are intended to give Martial classes a little boost, whilst not breaking the game. Do not expect to create a powerful and deadly fighter using Flourishes - but do expect a powerful and deadly fighter to be able to use them!
How to use Flourishes
Flourishes are used when an attack roll exactly equals a target’s armour class. When this happens, you can choose one of the following options to apply, instead of the damage from the attack. In each case, the target must succeed on a saving throw contested by an attack roll by you, or suffer an effect.
Disarm
You can force the target to attempt a Strength saving throw, contested by an attack roll by you. If they fail, then one item of your choice which they are holding is dropped.
Trip
You can force the target to attempt a Dexterity saving throw, contested by an attack roll by you. If they fail, then they fall prone.
Hamper
You can force the target to attempt a Constitution saving throw, contested by an attack roll by you. If they fail, then their movement speed is halved until the end of their next turn.
Drive Back
You can force the target to attempt a Wisdom saving throw, contested by an attack roll by you. If they fail, then they move 5ft. directly away from you. If you choose to, you can then move 5ft. towards them.
Bewilder
You can force the target to attempt an Intelligence saving throw, contested by an attack roll by you. If they fail, then they have disadvantage on the first attack roll they make during their next turn.
Intimidate
You can force the target to attempt a Charisma saving throw, contested by an attack roll by you. If they fail, then they are Frightened of you until the end of their next turn.
For those that say "but some players want simple characters" this would not create any complexity at all for those players. I'd guess most of them don't even know grapple and shove exist, so they could just not know these options exist too.
I don't think anyone would consistently always choose the push attack or disarm attack above because it only does half damage. It would be a viable option to push someone back with your attack.
My experience is that players use grapple regularly and shove less frequently but it still gets used. But I can see if there are players that love the simple Champion fighter then as some tables these don't get used (which is the benefit of this system - it doesn't screw over those of us with interest in playing a rich martial at the expense of keeping the game simple).
Parry is not baked into AC currently. If it was then your AC would change when you pick up a weapon. You could argue that it is baked into HP I suppose (but that just further stretches the HP abstraction).
“For those who want simple characters, they should just ignore features” is not just a silly suggestion - it is a solution which creates unnecessary problems.
Most folks do not grapple or shove because those are generally terrible options with situational use. And, in the situations where they are useful, it is easy for someone else at the table to say “hey, you could do a grapple/shove” without causing problems.
Things like parry are useful with regularity - which means you really should be using them. And, if we live in the real world rather than dismissive fantasy land, we all know what happens when someone isn’t using a class feature they should be using - the other players will point it out until the person changes their behavior (and thus is forced to play a more complex class than they wanted) of until everyone else at the table grows frustrated with one of their party’s suboptimal (and thus limiting the rest of the party) play.
Wizards is not going to abandon the folks who want simple play, nor are they going to insult them by saying “you better play something more complicated or risk the mockery of your party members.” That isn’t a solution - that’s creating a brand new set of problems for literally no reason.
What is a solution? Subclasses that increase complexity. Which is what Wizards has done - and done really well with Fighter. From the base champion providing folks a simple option, to Samurai’s simple option with out of combat charm, to Caviller, somewhere in the middle, to Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight, and Battlemaster, with their nuances and complexities, Fighter spans the whole gauntlet of complexities, giving a little something to everyone.
Those are really awesome! I know I had halved the damage but the reality is what you said - it isn't always about doing damage it's about doing something interesting.
I think it is cool also because you made this "any time there is an attack roll". Meaning these work with both multiattack and opportunity attack which gives the martial something interesting with reactions too.
The only criticism I have is the name really, and only because it overlaps with the bard "flourish" feature. Hardly damning criticism!
I guess I missed "exactly equals the target AC". I'm not sure why that limitation is needed since there is a big trade off in not doing damage on the attack. What was your thinking on that part?
For those that say "but some players want simple characters" this would not create any complexity at all for those players. I'd guess most of them don't even know grapple and shove exist, so they could just not know these options exist too.
I don't think anyone would consistently always choose the push attack or disarm attack above because it only does half damage. It would be a viable option to push someone back with your attack.
My experience is that players use grapple regularly and shove less frequently but it still gets used. But I can see if there are players that love the simple Champion fighter then as some tables these don't get used (which is the benefit of this system - it doesn't screw over those of us with interest in playing a rich martial at the expense of keeping the game simple).
Parry is not baked into AC currently. If it was then your AC would change when you pick up a weapon. You could argue that it is baked into HP I suppose (but that just further stretches the HP abstraction).
“For those who want simple characters, they should just ignore features” is not just a silly suggestion - it is a solution which creates unnecessary problems.
Most folks do not grapple or shove because those are generally terrible options with situational use. And, in the situations where they are useful, it is easy for someone else at the table to say “hey, you could do a grapple/shove” without causing problems.
Things like parry are useful with regularity - which means you really should be using them. And, if we live in the real world rather than dismissive fantasy land, we all know what happens when someone isn’t using a class feature they should be using - the other players will point it out until the person changes their behavior (and thus is forced to play a more complex class than they wanted) of until everyone else at the table grows frustrated with one of their party’s suboptimal (and thus limiting the rest of the party) play.
Wizards is not going to abandon the folks who want simple play, nor are they going to insult them by saying “you better play something more complicated or risk the mockery of your party members.” That isn’t a solution - that’s creating a brand new set of problems for literally no reason.
What is a solution? Subclasses that increase complexity. Which is what Wizards has done - and done really well with Fighter. From the base champion providing folks a simple option, to Samurai’s simple option with out of combat charm, to Caviller, somewhere in the middle, to Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight, and Battlemaster, with their nuances and complexities, Fighter spans the whole gauntlet of complexities, giving a little something to everyone.
I think I could get behind your last paragraph if each subclass had roughly twice as many features as they do now. As it stands each one ends up kind of being a one trick pony.
I know it sounds crazy to say double the features but honestly given the crazy exponential power curve of casters it wouldn't really change the power of the class that much.
For those that say "but some players want simple characters" this would not create any complexity at all for those players. I'd guess most of them don't even know grapple and shove exist, so they could just not know these options exist too.
I don't think anyone would consistently always choose the push attack or disarm attack above because it only does half damage. It would be a viable option to push someone back with your attack.
My experience is that players use grapple regularly and shove less frequently but it still gets used. But I can see if there are players that love the simple Champion fighter then as some tables these don't get used (which is the benefit of this system - it doesn't screw over those of us with interest in playing a rich martial at the expense of keeping the game simple).
Parry is not baked into AC currently. If it was then your AC would change when you pick up a weapon. You could argue that it is baked into HP I suppose (but that just further stretches the HP abstraction).
“For those who want simple characters, they should just ignore features” is not just a silly suggestion - it is a solution which creates unnecessary problems.
Most folks do not grapple or shove because those are generally terrible options with situational use. And, in the situations where they are useful, it is easy for someone else at the table to say “hey, you could do a grapple/shove” without causing problems.
Things like parry are useful with regularity - which means you really should be using them. And, if we live in the real world rather than dismissive fantasy land, we all know what happens when someone isn’t using a class feature they should be using - the other players will point it out until the person changes their behavior (and thus is forced to play a more complex class than they wanted) of until everyone else at the table grows frustrated with one of their party’s suboptimal (and thus limiting the rest of the party) play.
Wizards is not going to abandon the folks who want simple play, nor are they going to insult them by saying “you better play something more complicated or risk the mockery of your party members.” That isn’t a solution - that’s creating a brand new set of problems for literally no reason.
What is a solution? Subclasses that increase complexity. Which is what Wizards has done - and done really well with Fighter. From the base champion providing folks a simple option, to Samurai’s simple option with out of combat charm, to Caviller, somewhere in the middle, to Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight, and Battlemaster, with their nuances and complexities, Fighter spans the whole gauntlet of complexities, giving a little something to everyone.
I think I could get behind your last paragraph if each subclass had roughly twice as many features as they do now. As it stands each one ends up kind of being a one trick pony.
I know it sounds crazy to say double the features but honestly given the crazy exponential power curve of casters it wouldn't really change the power of the class that much.
The caster/martial divide is another one that’s simply baked into the game and not going anywhere. To reiterate the earlier point, part of that is division of complexity; dedicated martials lie on the simple end, half casters cover a middle ground, and full casters cover the far end. Also, within the system and structure of a generally medieval fantasy most people want from D&D, martials simply do not have the basis to match casters on array of capabilities. Battlemaster is already covering most of the expected “moves” a martial could make; they’re trying to work in a few more for Rogues and getting mixed responses.
Honestly, if you want a more intricate system of martial options, you might be better served looking back at 3.5 or Pathfinder. 5e has made simplicity of play a cornerstone for martials, and they’ve had enough supporting feedback that they’re sticking with it for the foreseeable future.
Wizards is happy with base fighter because players are happy with it. Their data consistently shows that “add some Battlemaster features to base Fighter” is rather unpopular among a segment of the population who wants to have simple options (like Champion Fighter) available to them. This was something they reiterated in one of their recent 5.5 play tests.
Exactly. And the self-selected One D&D surveys we use to determine what level of complexity is wanted will favor the more active and experienced players, and will obviously be drastically skewed towards what these individuals want, as opposed to what the dozens of millions of people who actually play the game less seriously might enjoy.
Also, we've had several debates on this that contain well over 600 comments. I would recommend checking Martial Complexity Debate 1 and Debate 2 out if you want to read angry people screaming and arguing in circles, because - especially at the start of the threads before it devolves into a mosh pit - there are some interesting points that will likely clarify things for the original poster and anyone who wants to understand the Martial and Fighter complexity further.
These forums have been the leading place for getting mad at each other over the complexity of the Fighter, and I believe there is a third debate somewhere where I discussed how my perspective had changed and how I do think it's preferable that the Barbarian remains relatively simple. If you go searching, you'll find a couple gazillion heated "discussions" on this, which is why I was sadly incapable of finding this last debate for reference.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Wizards is happy with base fighter because players are happy with it. Their data consistently shows that “add some Battlemaster features to base Fighter” is rather unpopular among a segment of the population who wants to have simple options (like Champion Fighter) available to them. This was something they reiterated in one of their recent 5.5 play tests.
Exactly. And the self-selected One D&D surveys we use to determine what level of complexity is wanted will favor the more active and experienced players, and will obviously be drastically skewed towards what these individuals want, as opposed to what the dozens of millions of people who actually play the game less seriously might enjoy.
Also, we've had several debates on this that contain well over 600 comments. I would recommend checking Martial Complexity Debate 1 and Debate 2 out if you want to read angry people screaming and arguing in circles, because - especially at the start of the threads before it devolves into a mosh pit - there are some interesting points that will likely clarify things for the original poster and anyone who wants to understand the Martial and Fighter complexity further.
These forums have been the leading place for getting mad at each other over the complexity of the Fighter, and I believe there is a third debate somewhere where I discussed how my perspective had changed and how I do think it's preferable that the Barbarian remains relatively simple. If you go searching, you'll find a couple gazillion heated "discussions" on this, which is why I was sadly incapable of finding this last debate for reference.
I would just like to point out that this is a major company conducting the survey, not someone’s high school math project. They aren’t just going to put the final numbers on a pie chart and say “go with the biggest wedge”; they’re almost certainly going to have a few statisticians break the information down and write up reports on the segments. Obviously majority opinions will have greater sway and those will be skewed by what segments most participate in the survey, but that’s how literally every customer opinion survey works, not a unique failing of WotC.
I would just like to point out that this is a major company conducting the survey, not someone’s high school math project. They aren’t just going to put the final numbers on a pie chart and say “go with the biggest wedge”; they’re almost certainly going to have a few statisticians break the information down and write up reports on the segments. Obviously majority opinions will have greater sway and those will be skewed by what segments most participate in the survey, but that’s how literally every customer opinion survey works, not a unique failing of WotC.
Absolutely. My point is just to clarify this because I've seen a lot of people in the aforementioned discussions completely overlook this fact. And you're right that Wizards will almost certainly understand this, because it is how they can profit the most after all lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Wow reading those two debates even just at the surface is super depressing for anyone with a fantasy of playing an interesting fighter character. As many have said on the other threads WoTC should be able to find a way to give the crowd that wants simplicity something without screwing over the rest of us that want to play an actual high fantasy fighter that has lots of options. It's not that hard, but they just don't care.
At this stage the only reason I keep playing 5e at all is that is the game my group plays (and my connection to them is more important than the game in the end). And no I'm not interested in Pathfinder or 3.5 or anything that over the top. Just a few damn extra actions, bonus actions and reactions that give me some tactical choices in combat and some out of combat utility would do it (the second wind changes in onednd mostly scratch this second itch).
As someone said on the other thread if you want martials fixed you are in a minority that is being ignored and also for the most part being actively told to shut the $&@? up.
I would just like to point out that this is a major company conducting the survey, not someone’s high school math project. They aren’t just going to put the final numbers on a pie chart and say “go with the biggest wedge”; they’re almost certainly going to have a few statisticians break the information down and write up reports on the segments. Obviously majority opinions will have greater sway and those will be skewed by what segments most participate in the survey, but that’s how literally every customer opinion survey works, not a unique failing of WotC.
Absolutely. My point is just to clarify this because I've seen a lot of people in the aforementioned discussions completely overlook this fact. And you're right that Wizards will almost certainly understand this, because it is how they can profit the most after all lol.
I think Fighter is a good example of what The_Ace_of_Rogues is talking about.
In Crawford’s recent video on this exact subject, he indicated polling showed most folks want a more complex playstyle than base Fighter, but that there was still a sizeable minority who are extremely happy with the simplicity. He also noted that base fighter was a great tool for new players to dip their feet into the game, without feeling overwhelmed (a common new player complaint and common fear keeping folks from trying the game).
Crawford basically confirmed that they were not going to side with the majority because they did not want two other demographics to suffer - the sizeable minority who want a simple characters and new players - as a result of deferring to the majority’s wants. Personally, that decision is one of the most reassuring things I have seen from Wizards throughout this entire 5.5e playtest—they have been putting so much emphasis on the majority opinions on their videos that it is nice to see they are not losing sight of other priorities.
How does any of this interact with multiclassing options and "martial" classes with spell slots?
Will adding more combat actions/options just tip the balance in favour of multiclassed characters or Paladins smiting left and right?
Does this mean you'd have to implement a no multiclassing rule or rule that the only martial classes that can benefit from this (and other) options cannot have or gain spell slots?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Need a character idea? Search for "Rob76's Unused" in the Story and Lore section.
I would just like to point out that this is a major company conducting the survey, not someone’s high school math project. They aren’t just going to put the final numbers on a pie chart and say “go with the biggest wedge”; they’re almost certainly going to have a few statisticians break the information down and write up reports on the segments. Obviously majority opinions will have greater sway and those will be skewed by what segments most participate in the survey, but that’s how literally every customer opinion survey works, not a unique failing of WotC.
Absolutely. My point is just to clarify this because I've seen a lot of people in the aforementioned discussions completely overlook this fact. And you're right that Wizards will almost certainly understand this, because it is how they can profit the most after all lol.
I think Fighter is a good example of what The_Ace_of_Rogues is talking about.
In Crawford’s recent video on this exact subject, he indicated polling showed most folks want a more complex playstyle than base Fighter, but that there was still a sizeable minority who are extremely happy with the simplicity. He also noted that base fighter was a great tool for new players to dip their feet into the game, without feeling overwhelmed (a common new player complaint and common fear keeping folks from trying the game).
Crawford basically confirmed that they were not going to side with the majority because they did not want two other demographics to suffer - the sizeable minority who want a simple characters and new players - as a result of deferring to the majority’s wants. Personally, that decision is one of the most reassuring things I have seen from Wizards throughout this entire 5.5e playtest—they have been putting so much emphasis on the majority opinions on their videos that it is nice to see they are not losing sight of other priorities.
God forbid they would be creative enough to find a solution that satisfies those that want simplicity and those that don't. In fact I'd argue they should be trying to solve this for casters too - give players a better way to dip their toe in when their favorite fantasy character is a wizard.
I would just like to point out that this is a major company conducting the survey, not someone’s high school math project. They aren’t just going to put the final numbers on a pie chart and say “go with the biggest wedge”; they’re almost certainly going to have a few statisticians break the information down and write up reports on the segments. Obviously majority opinions will have greater sway and those will be skewed by what segments most participate in the survey, but that’s how literally every customer opinion survey works, not a unique failing of WotC.
Absolutely. My point is just to clarify this because I've seen a lot of people in the aforementioned discussions completely overlook this fact. And you're right that Wizards will almost certainly understand this, because it is how they can profit the most after all lol.
I think Fighter is a good example of what The_Ace_of_Rogues is talking about.
In Crawford’s recent video on this exact subject, he indicated polling showed most folks want a more complex playstyle than base Fighter, but that there was still a sizeable minority who are extremely happy with the simplicity. He also noted that base fighter was a great tool for new players to dip their feet into the game, without feeling overwhelmed (a common new player complaint and common fear keeping folks from trying the game).
Crawford basically confirmed that they were not going to side with the majority because they did not want two other demographics to suffer - the sizeable minority who want a simple characters and new players - as a result of deferring to the majority’s wants. Personally, that decision is one of the most reassuring things I have seen from Wizards throughout this entire 5.5e playtest—they have been putting so much emphasis on the majority opinions on their videos that it is nice to see they are not losing sight of other priorities.
Go forbid they would be creative enough to find a solution that satisfies those that want simplicity and those that don't. In fact I'd argue they should be trying to solve this for casters too - give players a better way to dip their toe in when their favorite fantasy character is a wizard.
They did. Subclasses. Or playing as a Bladesinger. Or a Hexblade. Or a Paladin. Or any of the other options available. Wizards isn’t the problem here - the problem is folks who want to play a character with options then just… don’t take advantage of the many ways to do it.
Now, do I think they should make some new complex subclass options for fighter? Certainly - but I would not force my desire for more complexity on the myriad players who do not want it.
I think one of the big problems I have with the Battlemaster subclass is that it provides a whole set of actions for only that subclass that arguably should be available to anyone who is skilled with weapons.
The idea that a skilled combatant wouldn't have such basics as parry, riposte, pushing attack, and disarming attack is just beyond silly. I'm sure there are probably others but these seem like the bare minimum. A simple change would be:
* Riposte and Parry become reactions that any trained combatant (ie, martial class) can utilize. However instead of superiority die, parry increases your AC+2 for that attack (at the cost of your reaction) and Riposte increases the damage of your next attack by +2. Battlemasters that specialize in these maneuvers get to add their superiority dice and reroll any 1's.
* Pushing Attack and Disarming Attack become new types of attacks that a combatant can use when they pick the attack action (just like shove or grapple). Only battlemasters using these get to add superiority dice damage. Everyone else gets their damage reduced by half and the corresponding effect (save vs strength or get pushed/disarmed).
This would keep battlemasters "special" but would fill a silly hole where skilled combat participants can't do skilled combat stuff.
(I also like the weapon mastery rules but some of this stuff is just so basic - like c'mon anyone that knows how to use a sword should know how to block their opponent's attacks!)
Wizards is happy with base fighter because players are happy with it. Their data consistently shows that “add some Battlemaster features to base Fighter” is rather unpopular among a segment of the population who wants to have simple options (like Champion Fighter) available to them. This was something they reiterated in one of their recent 5.5 play tests.
That is the reality. While many might see the base martial classes as simplistic (myself included), that is by design. There should be a plethora of straightforward options, giving players who want a linear playstyle with little to track options. Fortunately Wizards knows this and ignores the many, many “please make martial more complex” cries. They are - rightfully - going to keep the base martials pretty straightforward and will continue to use subclasses to appeal to those seeking more complexity. After all, you can always add complexity with a subclass - you cannot really take away complexity from a base class.
I don't think you should be fooled by names like "Parry" etc. into thinking that every other combatant in all the DnD universes doesn't know "put my slashy stick in way of opponent slashy stick makes it not hurt". A more accurate name would be something like "Skillfull parry", but that's a mouth full. Every other class just has its parry baked into AC, which of course is an oversimplification, but pretty much everything in the DnD rules is.
There are optional combat actions, which include the Disarm action, in the DMG that the DM can allow.
DMG - Action Options
Presently, martials can Shove, Grapple, and Attack. I have very rarely seen them Shove, and only occasionally seen them Grapple.
The fact is that if it doesn't do damage, then people don't do it. And to do damage, you attack.
If you add damage to a shove, then until people get multiattack, they will all be shoving, all the time.
As others have said, Fighters are meant to be easy to play, with subclasses making them more interesting, and parrying is part of the "+ dex" of armour class.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
For those that say "but some players want simple characters" this would not create any complexity at all for those players. I'd guess most of them don't even know grapple and shove exist, so they could just not know these options exist too.
I don't think anyone would consistently always choose the push attack or disarm attack above because it only does half damage. It would be a viable option to push someone back with your attack.
My experience is that players use grapple regularly and shove less frequently but it still gets used. But I can see if there are players that love the simple Champion fighter then as some tables these don't get used (which is the benefit of this system - it doesn't screw over those of us with interest in playing a rich martial at the expense of keeping the game simple).
Parry is not baked into AC currently. If it was then your AC would change when you pick up a weapon. You could argue that it is baked into HP I suppose (but that just further stretches the HP abstraction).
Had a ponder on this. Not sure if this is what you're looking for but what does everyone think?
Flourishes
Sometimes in life there are things which are just easy. To a skilled swordsman, this can include combat!
Flourishes are intended to give Martial classes a little boost, whilst not breaking the game. Do not expect to create a powerful and deadly fighter using Flourishes - but do expect a powerful and deadly fighter to be able to use them!
How to use Flourishes
Flourishes are used when an attack roll exactly equals a target’s armour class. When this happens, you can choose one of the following options to apply, instead of the damage from the attack. In each case, the target must succeed on a saving throw contested by an attack roll by you, or suffer an effect.
Disarm
You can force the target to attempt a Strength saving throw, contested by an attack roll by you. If they fail, then one item of your choice which they are holding is dropped.
Trip
You can force the target to attempt a Dexterity saving throw, contested by an attack roll by you. If they fail, then they fall prone.
Hamper
You can force the target to attempt a Constitution saving throw, contested by an attack roll by you. If they fail, then their movement speed is halved until the end of their next turn.
Drive Back
You can force the target to attempt a Wisdom saving throw, contested by an attack roll by you. If they fail, then they move 5ft. directly away from you. If you choose to, you can then move 5ft. towards them.
Bewilder
You can force the target to attempt an Intelligence saving throw, contested by an attack roll by you. If they fail, then they have disadvantage on the first attack roll they make during their next turn.
Intimidate
You can force the target to attempt a Charisma saving throw, contested by an attack roll by you. If they fail, then they are Frightened of you until the end of their next turn.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
“For those who want simple characters, they should just ignore features” is not just a silly suggestion - it is a solution which creates unnecessary problems.
Most folks do not grapple or shove because those are generally terrible options with situational use. And, in the situations where they are useful, it is easy for someone else at the table to say “hey, you could do a grapple/shove” without causing problems.
Things like parry are useful with regularity - which means you really should be using them. And, if we live in the real world rather than dismissive fantasy land, we all know what happens when someone isn’t using a class feature they should be using - the other players will point it out until the person changes their behavior (and thus is forced to play a more complex class than they wanted) of until everyone else at the table grows frustrated with one of their party’s suboptimal (and thus limiting the rest of the party) play.
Wizards is not going to abandon the folks who want simple play, nor are they going to insult them by saying “you better play something more complicated or risk the mockery of your party members.” That isn’t a solution - that’s creating a brand new set of problems for literally no reason.
What is a solution? Subclasses that increase complexity. Which is what Wizards has done - and done really well with Fighter. From the base champion providing folks a simple option, to Samurai’s simple option with out of combat charm, to Caviller, somewhere in the middle, to Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight, and Battlemaster, with their nuances and complexities, Fighter spans the whole gauntlet of complexities, giving a little something to everyone.
Those are really awesome! I know I had halved the damage but the reality is what you said - it isn't always about doing damage it's about doing something interesting.
I think it is cool also because you made this "any time there is an attack roll". Meaning these work with both multiattack and opportunity attack which gives the martial something interesting with reactions too.
The only criticism I have is the name really, and only because it overlaps with the bard "flourish" feature. Hardly damning criticism!
Really cool!
I guess I missed "exactly equals the target AC". I'm not sure why that limitation is needed since there is a big trade off in not doing damage on the attack. What was your thinking on that part?
I think I could get behind your last paragraph if each subclass had roughly twice as many features as they do now. As it stands each one ends up kind of being a one trick pony.
I know it sounds crazy to say double the features but honestly given the crazy exponential power curve of casters it wouldn't really change the power of the class that much.
The caster/martial divide is another one that’s simply baked into the game and not going anywhere. To reiterate the earlier point, part of that is division of complexity; dedicated martials lie on the simple end, half casters cover a middle ground, and full casters cover the far end. Also, within the system and structure of a generally medieval fantasy most people want from D&D, martials simply do not have the basis to match casters on array of capabilities. Battlemaster is already covering most of the expected “moves” a martial could make; they’re trying to work in a few more for Rogues and getting mixed responses.
Honestly, if you want a more intricate system of martial options, you might be better served looking back at 3.5 or Pathfinder. 5e has made simplicity of play a cornerstone for martials, and they’ve had enough supporting feedback that they’re sticking with it for the foreseeable future.
Exactly. And the self-selected One D&D surveys we use to determine what level of complexity is wanted will favor the more active and experienced players, and will obviously be drastically skewed towards what these individuals want, as opposed to what the dozens of millions of people who actually play the game less seriously might enjoy.
Also, we've had several debates on this that contain well over 600 comments. I would recommend checking Martial Complexity Debate 1 and Debate 2 out if you want to read angry people screaming and arguing in circles, because - especially at the start of the threads before it devolves into a mosh pit - there are some interesting points that will likely clarify things for the original poster and anyone who wants to understand the Martial and Fighter complexity further.
These forums have been the leading place for getting mad at each other over the complexity of the Fighter, and I believe there is a third debate somewhere where I discussed how my perspective had changed and how I do think it's preferable that the Barbarian remains relatively simple. If you go searching, you'll find a couple gazillion heated "discussions" on this, which is why I was sadly incapable of finding this last debate for reference.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I would just like to point out that this is a major company conducting the survey, not someone’s high school math project. They aren’t just going to put the final numbers on a pie chart and say “go with the biggest wedge”; they’re almost certainly going to have a few statisticians break the information down and write up reports on the segments. Obviously majority opinions will have greater sway and those will be skewed by what segments most participate in the survey, but that’s how literally every customer opinion survey works, not a unique failing of WotC.
Absolutely. My point is just to clarify this because I've seen a lot of people in the aforementioned discussions completely overlook this fact. And you're right that Wizards will almost certainly understand this, because it is how they can profit the most after all lol.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Wow reading those two debates even just at the surface is super depressing for anyone with a fantasy of playing an interesting fighter character. As many have said on the other threads WoTC should be able to find a way to give the crowd that wants simplicity something without screwing over the rest of us that want to play an actual high fantasy fighter that has lots of options. It's not that hard, but they just don't care.
At this stage the only reason I keep playing 5e at all is that is the game my group plays (and my connection to them is more important than the game in the end). And no I'm not interested in Pathfinder or 3.5 or anything that over the top. Just a few damn extra actions, bonus actions and reactions that give me some tactical choices in combat and some out of combat utility would do it (the second wind changes in onednd mostly scratch this second itch).
As someone said on the other thread if you want martials fixed you are in a minority that is being ignored and also for the most part being actively told to shut the $&@? up.
I think Fighter is a good example of what The_Ace_of_Rogues is talking about.
In Crawford’s recent video on this exact subject, he indicated polling showed most folks want a more complex playstyle than base Fighter, but that there was still a sizeable minority who are extremely happy with the simplicity. He also noted that base fighter was a great tool for new players to dip their feet into the game, without feeling overwhelmed (a common new player complaint and common fear keeping folks from trying the game).
Crawford basically confirmed that they were not going to side with the majority because they did not want two other demographics to suffer - the sizeable minority who want a simple characters and new players - as a result of deferring to the majority’s wants. Personally, that decision is one of the most reassuring things I have seen from Wizards throughout this entire 5.5e playtest—they have been putting so much emphasis on the majority opinions on their videos that it is nice to see they are not losing sight of other priorities.
A few questions for consideration:
God forbid they would be creative enough to find a solution that satisfies those that want simplicity and those that don't. In fact I'd argue they should be trying to solve this for casters too - give players a better way to dip their toe in when their favorite fantasy character is a wizard.
They did. Subclasses. Or playing as a Bladesinger. Or a Hexblade. Or a Paladin. Or any of the other options available. Wizards isn’t the problem here - the problem is folks who want to play a character with options then just… don’t take advantage of the many ways to do it.
Now, do I think they should make some new complex subclass options for fighter? Certainly - but I would not force my desire for more complexity on the myriad players who do not want it.