subclasses (Valor Bard, Sword Bard, Dance Bard, War Cleric maybe, Blade Locks maybe) get the maneuver die pool, but not a free die per turn. Rogues can divert 1 Sneak Attack die per turn; comparable to that, the specific Bard subclasses I mentioned can use Bardic Inspiration as a Maneuver Die once per turn. Martial Adept grants dice toward the maneuver die poo
But why? Why should full casters get to do the same things as martials? If the biggest criticism against all the things I said were options for martials is that "other characters is the party could do that too" (even though other characters would be much worse at them than marital) Why do people keep suggesting giving their new cool thing to boost martials to other characters as well?
What do you think of 1 free maneuver die per turn for Fighters and Monks, instead of the BattleMaster's way of having only the limited number of dice?
Conceptually I like the idea but it would have to be balanced with multi classing.
Yeah, since posting the question, I realized it would have to be worded or limited in a way that prevents getting 2 such free dice per turn.
subclasses (Valor Bard, Sword Bard, Dance Bard, War Cleric maybe, Blade Locks maybe) get the maneuver die pool, but not a free die per turn. Rogues can divert 1 Sneak Attack die per turn; comparable to that, the specific Bard subclasses I mentioned can use Bardic Inspiration as a Maneuver Die once per turn. Martial Adept grants dice toward the maneuver die poo
But why? Why should full casters get to do the same things as martials? If the biggest criticism against all the things I said were options for martials is that "other characters is the party could do that too" (even though other characters would be much worse at them than marital) Why do people keep suggesting giving their new cool thing to boost martials to other characters as well?
I feel this sooooooo much...
I also really wish there would be a move away from dice... Like there's bard dice, rogue's dice, etc... And points, as we have sorcerer points, discipline points, etc... Something new and innovative.
subclasses (Valor Bard, Sword Bard, Dance Bard, War Cleric maybe, Blade Locks maybe) get the maneuver die pool, but not a free die per turn. Rogues can divert 1 Sneak Attack die per turn; comparable to that, the specific Bard subclasses I mentioned can use Bardic Inspiration as a Maneuver Die once per turn. Martial Adept grants dice toward the maneuver die poo
But why? Why should full casters get to do the same things as martials? If the biggest criticism against all the things I said were options for martials is that "other characters is the party could do that too" (even though other characters would be much worse at them than marital) Why do people keep suggesting giving their new cool thing to boost martials to other characters as well?
What do you think of 1 free maneuver die per turn for Fighters and Monks, instead of the BattleMaster's way of having only the limited number of dice
It brings it back to the problem people have expressed with respect to Weapon Mastery : that getting to do it every turn makes it "boring", in terms of balance it's basically just Hunter Ranger (Colossus Slayer gives you 1d8 extra per turn, and Weapon Mastery gives you the small battlefield control bonus), so it's fine.
Have you (or other people arguing for this) actually played as a Battlemaster? or played with Battlemasters? I have, and IME they are not as popular as people seem to think they are. It's easy to look at their mechanics on paper and think it looks really cool, but in actual play I have yet to see any player actually manage to do anything cool with them. And I have seen 3 players give up and rebuild their characters because they found Battlemaster boring and weak. The only player that really enjoyed Battlemaster played as an Archer and exclusively used Precise Attack in order to land Sharpshooter shots more often.
I've GM'd a high level (14) Battlemaster. It worked better with more resources and they enjoyed it, although it was only a short adventure.
I would say the biggest flaw of the Battlemaster is making a whole Subclass devoted to doing what all Fighters should be able to do. Which brings me back to the suggestions people have suggested of giving manoeuvres (without damage) to all Fighters.
I've GM'd a high level (14) Battlemaster. It worked better with more resources and they enjoyed it, although it was only a short adventure.
I would say the biggest flaw of the Battlemaster is making a whole Subclass devoted to doing what all Fighters should be able to do. Which brings me back to the suggestions people have suggested of giving manoeuvres (without damage) to all Fighters.
i've never dm'd for a battlemaster. would you say that it [never/sometimes/often] runs up against the wall of a player wanting to do a cool thing but everyone must stop and discuss whether the cool thing is too much like a resource skill they or someone else has? like Lunge out of a tree in Ambush, hiding under a table for a Trip Attack, Brace a spear against cavalry, "i aim at the beast's third nipple," etc.
so much of what the battlemaster has to offer seems like it's "well, you can certainly try" territory plus an extra die of damage. at this point in the game i feel like the basic rules that include shove (and slightly more nuanced shove aside) can find the space to mention things like "trip" and "called shot." i know it's mostly left open to dm interpretation but then it's taken right back out of the dm's hands again by things like maneuvers!
Thankfully never! I have a great group of players always trying to do awesome things, sometimes pushing the boundaries too much (like all players do!) I also try to encourage and reward behaviour that's not just 'hit for damage' (sometimes it backfires, mostly I succeed).
I tend to allow players to do cool things that are in keeping with their characters anyway, so have arguably been running the proposed changes here as homebrew in some form for years. For big things that could be abused, I make it clear they're one off and the enemy learn (e.g. reflecting light of a sword into their eyes to Blind for a turn, using their Glaive to Trip an enemy, pinning an unsuspecting enemy to a wall by an arrow through their palm, etc.). Also, they'd never be jealous of another player's ability to do something cool but we also session 0 to deconflict characters; as I said, I've got a great group!
Now the ability to make these rulings on the fly in combat is largely down to my comfort and knowledge of the system. For a new DM, having the options spelled out, or at least alluded to, for the base Fighter would help if they needed to make s split second decision.
The Battlemaster player said they had fun, and were definitely the busiest bouncing around the melee (it was a nautical setting so they had a lot of fun kicking people off the side of ships, etc.) but didn't feel they were doing anything they shouldn't be able to do as a Fighter normally, just with better action economy and a little damage boost. Their next character was an Eldritch Knight and they automatically began describing the basic maneuvers they were taking and I rolled with it (obviously without superiority damage and in lieu of an attack or for a Bonus Action) and it worked really well.
Having played and run very explicitly defined games like PF2, where every action is given and you can only do what's listed, and narrative games like Blades In The Dark, etc. I think 5e is weirdly in the middle. Both have their merits but a system needs consistency. For the most there's a lot of flex for interpretation in 5e, which is good, but then combat is very explicitly defined in some areas to prevent abuses and as a legacy from previous editions. OD&D has leant even further into listing detailed actions, etc (probably to enable online compatibility) so that's why I feel the Fighter neds those options more explicitly called out for future editions.
subclasses (Valor Bard, Sword Bard, Dance Bard, War Cleric maybe, Blade Locks maybe) get the maneuver die pool
But why? Why should full casters get to do the same things as martials?
What I'm doing is incorporating the Bardic Flourishes from the College of Swords into the set of maneuvers. IMO it makes sense to incorporate them into the mechanic because they're essentially the inverse of a "1/3 caster subclass for martial classes": a Martial Subclass for a Caster Class. That label (martial subclass for a caster class) also applies to the Valor Bard, Dance Bard, and maybe to the War Cleric and Blade Lock (though, Blade Locks aren't so much a subclass). I actually left the Bladesinger out of that list.
I could narrow that list, but if there's going to be a OneD&D College of Swords, they definitely belong in the list.
If the biggest criticism against all the things I said were options for martials is that "other characters is the party could do that too" (even though other characters would be much worse at them than marital) Why do people keep suggesting giving their new cool thing to boost martials to other characters as well?
My question has nothing to do with any of what you've said previously, nor the responses to it. It's a refinement of the thing I was already doing, and taking it a step further (by replacing Weapon Mastery as it exists in the playtest documents by instead going the direction of Superiority Dice and Maneuvers).
subclasses (Valor Bard, Sword Bard, Dance Bard, War Cleric maybe, Blade Locks maybe) get the maneuver die pool, but not a free die per turn. Rogues can divert 1 Sneak Attack die per turn; comparable to that, the specific Bard subclasses I mentioned can use Bardic Inspiration as a Maneuver Die once per turn. Martial Adept grants dice toward the maneuver die poo
But why? Why should full casters get to do the same things as martials? If the biggest criticism against all the things I said were options for martials is that "other characters is the party could do that too" (even though other characters would be much worse at them than marital) Why do people keep suggesting giving their new cool thing to boost martials to other characters as well?
What do you think of 1 free maneuver die per turn for Fighters and Monks, instead of the BattleMaster's way of having only the limited number of dice
It brings it back to the problem people have expressed with respect to Weapon Mastery : that getting to do it every turn makes it "boring",
I think it’s boring when it’s exactly one thing that you can do, so it’s the only thing you do every single time. For most of weapon mastery, that’s how it works: you can’t switch it up mid scene. (IIRC, there’s a high level fighter feature that does let you switch it up mid scene, but that means you have to wait until high level to use it).
Contrast that with a plethora of maneuvers, and getting more of them, where you can pick from a selection of maneuvers that fit the specific situation. And it could change from round to round, or even from attack to attack within your turn.
And then the one free die per turn (for Fighters and Monks, or for Barbarians while raging) means they can always do at least one maneuver every turn… from their selection of known maneuvers. So they can always add some extra oomph, but will have enough variations that it doesn’t get repetitive.
For most of weapon mastery, that’s how it works: you can’t switch it up mid scene.
Except it isn't because in the UA you can swap weapons every time you make an attack. If you have 3 weapon masteries that is 3 different mastery options you can swap between on the fly.
PS having many options doesn't mean you actually have a diversity of options. The Swords Bard has 3 different flourishes, two of which I have NEVER seen used. Battle Master has 23 different maneuvers, of which I have seen 7 of them ever used, and one of those (Lunging Attack) was used only to add the 1d8 extra damage because the player had made a poor choice for their maneuvers and the situations where they could be useful never came up.
For most of weapon mastery, that’s how it works: you can’t switch it up mid scene.
Except it isn't because in the UA you can swap weapons every time you make an attack. If you have 3 weapon masteries that is 3 different mastery options you can swap between on the fly.
PS having many options doesn't mean you actually have a diversity of options. The Swords Bard has 3 different flourishes, two of which I have NEVER seen used. Battle Master has 23 different maneuvers, of which I have seen 7 of them ever used, and one of those (Lunging Attack) was used only to add the 1d8 extra damage because the player had made a poor choice for their maneuvers and the situations where they could be useful never came up.
Honestly the same goes for just about anything where you have 95 bajillion choices in game...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, since posting the question, I realized it would have to be worded or limited in a way that prevents getting 2 such free dice per turn.
I feel this sooooooo much...
I also really wish there would be a move away from dice... Like there's bard dice, rogue's dice, etc... And points, as we have sorcerer points, discipline points, etc... Something new and innovative.
It brings it back to the problem people have expressed with respect to Weapon Mastery : that getting to do it every turn makes it "boring", in terms of balance it's basically just Hunter Ranger (Colossus Slayer gives you 1d8 extra per turn, and Weapon Mastery gives you the small battlefield control bonus), so it's fine.
Have you (or other people arguing for this) actually played as a Battlemaster? or played with Battlemasters? I have, and IME they are not as popular as people seem to think they are. It's easy to look at their mechanics on paper and think it looks really cool, but in actual play I have yet to see any player actually manage to do anything cool with them. And I have seen 3 players give up and rebuild their characters because they found Battlemaster boring and weak. The only player that really enjoyed Battlemaster played as an Archer and exclusively used Precise Attack in order to land Sharpshooter shots more often.
I've GM'd a high level (14) Battlemaster. It worked better with more resources and they enjoyed it, although it was only a short adventure.
I would say the biggest flaw of the Battlemaster is making a whole Subclass devoted to doing what all Fighters should be able to do. Which brings me back to the suggestions people have suggested of giving manoeuvres (without damage) to all Fighters.
i've never dm'd for a battlemaster. would you say that it [never/sometimes/often] runs up against the wall of a player wanting to do a cool thing but everyone must stop and discuss whether the cool thing is too much like a resource skill they or someone else has? like Lunge out of a tree in Ambush, hiding under a table for a Trip Attack, Brace a spear against cavalry, "i aim at the beast's third nipple," etc.
so much of what the battlemaster has to offer seems like it's "well, you can certainly try" territory plus an extra die of damage. at this point in the game i feel like the basic rules that include shove (and slightly more nuanced shove aside) can find the space to mention things like "trip" and "called shot." i know it's mostly left open to dm interpretation but then it's taken right back out of the dm's hands again by things like maneuvers!
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Thankfully never! I have a great group of players always trying to do awesome things, sometimes pushing the boundaries too much (like all players do!) I also try to encourage and reward behaviour that's not just 'hit for damage' (sometimes it backfires, mostly I succeed).
I tend to allow players to do cool things that are in keeping with their characters anyway, so have arguably been running the proposed changes here as homebrew in some form for years. For big things that could be abused, I make it clear they're one off and the enemy learn (e.g. reflecting light of a sword into their eyes to Blind for a turn, using their Glaive to Trip an enemy, pinning an unsuspecting enemy to a wall by an arrow through their palm, etc.). Also, they'd never be jealous of another player's ability to do something cool but we also session 0 to deconflict characters; as I said, I've got a great group!
Now the ability to make these rulings on the fly in combat is largely down to my comfort and knowledge of the system. For a new DM, having the options spelled out, or at least alluded to, for the base Fighter would help if they needed to make s split second decision.
The Battlemaster player said they had fun, and were definitely the busiest bouncing around the melee (it was a nautical setting so they had a lot of fun kicking people off the side of ships, etc.) but didn't feel they were doing anything they shouldn't be able to do as a Fighter normally, just with better action economy and a little damage boost. Their next character was an Eldritch Knight and they automatically began describing the basic maneuvers they were taking and I rolled with it (obviously without superiority damage and in lieu of an attack or for a Bonus Action) and it worked really well.
Having played and run very explicitly defined games like PF2, where every action is given and you can only do what's listed, and narrative games like Blades In The Dark, etc. I think 5e is weirdly in the middle. Both have their merits but a system needs consistency. For the most there's a lot of flex for interpretation in 5e, which is good, but then combat is very explicitly defined in some areas to prevent abuses and as a legacy from previous editions. OD&D has leant even further into listing detailed actions, etc (probably to enable online compatibility) so that's why I feel the Fighter neds those options more explicitly called out for future editions.
What I'm doing is incorporating the Bardic Flourishes from the College of Swords into the set of maneuvers. IMO it makes sense to incorporate them into the mechanic because they're essentially the inverse of a "1/3 caster subclass for martial classes": a Martial Subclass for a Caster Class. That label (martial subclass for a caster class) also applies to the Valor Bard, Dance Bard, and maybe to the War Cleric and Blade Lock (though, Blade Locks aren't so much a subclass). I actually left the Bladesinger out of that list.
I could narrow that list, but if there's going to be a OneD&D College of Swords, they definitely belong in the list.
My question has nothing to do with any of what you've said previously, nor the responses to it. It's a refinement of the thing I was already doing, and taking it a step further (by replacing Weapon Mastery as it exists in the playtest documents by instead going the direction of Superiority Dice and Maneuvers).
I think it’s boring when it’s exactly one thing that you can do, so it’s the only thing you do every single time. For most of weapon mastery, that’s how it works: you can’t switch it up mid scene. (IIRC, there’s a high level fighter feature that does let you switch it up mid scene, but that means you have to wait until high level to use it).
Contrast that with a plethora of maneuvers, and getting more of them, where you can pick from a selection of maneuvers that fit the specific situation. And it could change from round to round, or even from attack to attack within your turn.
And then the one free die per turn (for Fighters and Monks, or for Barbarians while raging) means they can always do at least one maneuver every turn… from their selection of known maneuvers. So they can always add some extra oomph, but will have enough variations that it doesn’t get repetitive.
Except it isn't because in the UA you can swap weapons every time you make an attack. If you have 3 weapon masteries that is 3 different mastery options you can swap between on the fly.
PS having many options doesn't mean you actually have a diversity of options. The Swords Bard has 3 different flourishes, two of which I have NEVER seen used. Battle Master has 23 different maneuvers, of which I have seen 7 of them ever used, and one of those (Lunging Attack) was used only to add the 1d8 extra damage because the player had made a poor choice for their maneuvers and the situations where they could be useful never came up.
Honestly the same goes for just about anything where you have 95 bajillion choices in game...