You missed my point again. There is nothing else useful to do. There is also nothing else to do that cannot be done by someone else. Martials have nothing to greatly distinguish them. What tools, exactly?
Goalpost shift again. The original complaint was against "nothing to do but basic bonk" - not that special actions/ability checks can be replicated on multiple classes.
If Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue and Monk all have equal access to attempt the same checks/special attacks, e.g. disarming opponents, sundering their equipment, tripping them, demoralizing them, throwing dirt in their eyes etc. - which they do - that's still more than "basic bonk." The fact that access to those combat actions and more is common to all of them is irrelevant to the original complaint.
And if absolutely none of those activities, or indeed anything else that isn't "basic bonk" are ever useful at your table - that is a table issue, not a rulebook issue.
Also, per your second point, if the DM allows one improv action , why not another? That’s a really easy way to generate bad feeling at a table. Saying DMs constantly have to make rulings on the fly to make martials as interesting as everyone else instead of just giving them interesting, unique buttons is a bit naff. More than a bit. A hell of a lot.
Ruling on the fly is the essence of 5e. PHB 193: "Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter...The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character's ability scores."
Why would it generate bad feeling? This sounds like another table issue again. Mine has no issues with adjudicating improvised actions; the rules for this are on PHB 174 and DMG 238.
And.. yup. I agree - not every class should have the same array of buttons. That doesn’t mean should be more interesting than martials, more powerful than martials, more versatile than martials, and able to be a better martial than a martial. That’s not part of our discussion - but I’d like to point out not one of any of the improv suggestions cannot be a) done by a caster and b) outperformed by a spell which can consistently be used without DM fiat.
Also, don’t disparage newer players by saying casters are too complex - I joined in 5e, my first character was a sorcerer - a draconic fireballing Phlegethos tiefling, to be precise - and I had no problems whatsoever. I’m not saying that’s a universal experience but 5e really is not that complex. Which leads to problems like ‘I don’t have any good buttons outside of basic bonk that don’t rely on DM fiat and can be done better by a caster’.
I didn't say "casters are too complex for newer players" anywhere in my post 🤨 nor did I disparage anyone. When I wrote about arrays of base class buttons, I was referencing Jeremy Crawford's own words, such as this quote:
"We've seen some requests for the Battlemaster to be dismantled and its maneuvers to be given to the base class; that is something we explored early on for our work on the 2024 Player's Handbook. We ended up not going in that direction, and instead introducing Weapon Mastery for, for a number of reasons, but the two main ones I'll talk about right now... first off, people love this subclass, and what we did not want to do is just eliminate it for the sake of all the other subclasses. Also, the Battlemaster represents this style of play - having this pool of dice that you keep track of to spend on a variety of different micro-effects - it's just not something that's attractive to everyone who wants to be a Fighter. We know from nearly a decade now of going through player feedback, there are many people who play Fighters that have no interest in what the Battlemaster does."
Crawford, like myself, is acknowledging the fact that giving all Fighters BM-levels of combat granularity is not something that would be good for the game, never mind giving all martials everywhere such a thing.
I didn't say "casters are too complex for newer players" anywhere in my post 🤨 nor did I disparage anyone. When I wrote about arrays of base class buttons, I was referencing Jeremy Crawford's own words, such as this quote:
"We've seen some requests for the Battlemaster to be dismantled and its maneuvers to be given to the base class; that is something we explored early on for our work on the 2024 Player's Handbook. We ended up not going in that direction, and instead introducing Weapon Mastery for, for a number of reasons, but the two main ones I'll talk about right now... first off, people love this subclass, and what we did not want to do is just eliminate it for the sake of all the other subclasses. Also, the Battlemaster represents this style of play - having this pool of dice that you keep track of to spend on a variety of different micro-effects - it's just not something that's attractive to everyone who wants to be a Fighter. We know from nearly a decade now of going through player feedback, there are many people who play Fighters that have no interest in what the Battlemaster does."
Crawford, like myself, is acknowledging the fact that giving all Fighters BM-levels of combat granularity is not something that would be good for the game, never mind giving all martials everywhere such a thing.
Okay fine cool can we get more than ONE FREAKING SUBCLASS OF ONE FREAKING CLASS PLEASE? Superiority is such an awesome, amazing system, it'd be nice to be able to use it on LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE but one single subclass of one single class that anyone who loves Superiority has already run into the ground. A Superiority-based Ranger would be phenomenal, a Superiority-based rogue would be amazing. It'd be interesting to see how they could incorporate the idea into Barbarian, as well, find some sort of primal spinoff.
Just...something! I'd do it myself but the homebrew tools on this website are an unholy abomination and there's no damned way to get functional Superiority dice on anything but a freaking Battlemaster. ARGH.
I didn't say "casters are too complex for newer players" anywhere in my post 🤨 nor did I disparage anyone. When I wrote about arrays of base class buttons, I was referencing Jeremy Crawford's own words, such as this quote:
"We've seen some requests for the Battlemaster to be dismantled and its maneuvers to be given to the base class; that is something we explored early on for our work on the 2024 Player's Handbook. We ended up not going in that direction, and instead introducing Weapon Mastery for, for a number of reasons, but the two main ones I'll talk about right now... first off, people love this subclass, and what we did not want to do is just eliminate it for the sake of all the other subclasses. Also, the Battlemaster represents this style of play - having this pool of dice that you keep track of to spend on a variety of different micro-effects - it's just not something that's attractive to everyone who wants to be a Fighter. We know from nearly a decade now of going through player feedback, there are many people who play Fighters that have no interest in what the Battlemaster does."
Crawford, like myself, is acknowledging the fact that giving all Fighters BM-levels of combat granularity is not something that would be good for the game, never mind giving all martials everywhere such a thing.
Okay fine cool can we get more than ONE FREAKING SUBCLASS OF ONE FREAKING CLASS PLEASE? Superiority is such an awesome, amazing system, it'd be nice to be able to use it on LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE but one single subclass of one single class that anyone who loves Superiority has already run into the ground. A Superiority-based Ranger would be phenomenal, a Superiority-based rogue would be amazing. It'd be interesting to see how they could incorporate the idea into Barbarian, as well, find some sort of primal spinoff.
Just...something! I'd do it myself but the homebrew tools on this website are an unholy abomination and there's no damned way to get functional Superiority dice on anything but a freaking Battlemaster. ARGH.
I'm not opposed, but I think there's better ways to go about it. We already have two feats that can get you Battlemaster moves onto any martial - Martial Adept and Fighting Initiate. What I am in favor of WotC doing is buffing these two, and then giving every martial bonus ASIs to more easily pick them up - say, 3 total for Fighter, 2 for Rogue/Barbarian/Monk, and 1 for Ranger and Paladin. Using feats to engage with the system would allow each table to customize the exact level of engagement they're comfortable with, and tables that don't play with feats at all would still benefit by allowing martials to buff their mental/off-stats.
I didn't say "casters are too complex for newer players" anywhere in my post 🤨 nor did I disparage anyone. When I wrote about arrays of base class buttons, I was referencing Jeremy Crawford's own words, such as this quote:
"We've seen some requests for the Battlemaster to be dismantled and its maneuvers to be given to the base class; that is something we explored early on for our work on the 2024 Player's Handbook. We ended up not going in that direction, and instead introducing Weapon Mastery for, for a number of reasons, but the two main ones I'll talk about right now... first off, people love this subclass, and what we did not want to do is just eliminate it for the sake of all the other subclasses. Also, the Battlemaster represents this style of play - having this pool of dice that you keep track of to spend on a variety of different micro-effects - it's just not something that's attractive to everyone who wants to be a Fighter. We know from nearly a decade now of going through player feedback, there are many people who play Fighters that have no interest in what the Battlemaster does."
Crawford, like myself, is acknowledging the fact that giving all Fighters BM-levels of combat granularity is not something that would be good for the game, never mind giving all martials everywhere such a thing.
Okay fine cool can we get more than ONE FREAKING SUBCLASS OF ONE FREAKING CLASS PLEASE? Superiority is such an awesome, amazing system, it'd be nice to be able to use it on LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE but one single subclass of one single class that anyone who loves Superiority has already run into the ground. A Superiority-based Ranger would be phenomenal, a Superiority-based rogue would be amazing. It'd be interesting to see how they could incorporate the idea into Barbarian, as well, find some sort of primal spinoff.
Just...something! I'd do it myself but the homebrew tools on this website are an unholy abomination and there's no damned way to get functional Superiority dice on anything but a freaking Battlemaster. ARGH.
Alas, the monk once again gets left behind, by superiority this time, to sit huddled in the corner wiping away tears of despair from their cheeks.
I didn't say "casters are too complex for newer players" anywhere in my post 🤨 nor did I disparage anyone. When I wrote about arrays of base class buttons, I was referencing Jeremy Crawford's own words, such as this quote:
"We've seen some requests for the Battlemaster to be dismantled and its maneuvers to be given to the base class; that is something we explored early on for our work on the 2024 Player's Handbook. We ended up not going in that direction, and instead introducing Weapon Mastery for, for a number of reasons, but the two main ones I'll talk about right now... first off, people love this subclass, and what we did not want to do is just eliminate it for the sake of all the other subclasses. Also, the Battlemaster represents this style of play - having this pool of dice that you keep track of to spend on a variety of different micro-effects - it's just not something that's attractive to everyone who wants to be a Fighter. We know from nearly a decade now of going through player feedback, there are many people who play Fighters that have no interest in what the Battlemaster does."
Crawford, like myself, is acknowledging the fact that giving all Fighters BM-levels of combat granularity is not something that would be good for the game, never mind giving all martials everywhere such a thing.
Okay fine cool can we get more than ONE FREAKING SUBCLASS OF ONE FREAKING CLASS PLEASE? Superiority is such an awesome, amazing system, it'd be nice to be able to use it on LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE but one single subclass of one single class that anyone who loves Superiority has already run into the ground. A Superiority-based Ranger would be phenomenal, a Superiority-based rogue would be amazing. It'd be interesting to see how they could incorporate the idea into Barbarian, as well, find some sort of primal spinoff.
Just...something! I'd do it myself but the homebrew tools on this website are an unholy abomination and there's no damned way to get functional Superiority dice on anything but a freaking Battlemaster. ARGH.
The Swords Bard comes fairly close, and the monk is basically built around something similar (although the monk is done......poorly), but I agree a similar system would be great to see on a Rogue or a Ranger. The only other option is to play a different subclass of Fighter and take the Superior Technique combat style (granting one maneuver and one die, a d6) and also grabbing the Martial Adept feat (granting 2 more maneuvers and one more die, another d6) which would grant SOME of the Battlemaster options to a different Fighter subclass - it's nowhere near as good, but if one class option and one feat could match an entire subclass that would be horrible design. Sadly, that option is also limited solely to Fighters.
I didn't say "casters are too complex for newer players" anywhere in my post 🤨 nor did I disparage anyone. When I wrote about arrays of base class buttons, I was referencing Jeremy Crawford's own words, such as this quote:
"We've seen some requests for the Battlemaster to be dismantled and its maneuvers to be given to the base class; that is something we explored early on for our work on the 2024 Player's Handbook. We ended up not going in that direction, and instead introducing Weapon Mastery for, for a number of reasons, but the two main ones I'll talk about right now... first off, people love this subclass, and what we did not want to do is just eliminate it for the sake of all the other subclasses. Also, the Battlemaster represents this style of play - having this pool of dice that you keep track of to spend on a variety of different micro-effects - it's just not something that's attractive to everyone who wants to be a Fighter. We know from nearly a decade now of going through player feedback, there are many people who play Fighters that have no interest in what the Battlemaster does."
Crawford, like myself, is acknowledging the fact that giving all Fighters BM-levels of combat granularity is not something that would be good for the game, never mind giving all martials everywhere such a thing.
Okay fine cool can we get more than ONE FREAKING SUBCLASS OF ONE FREAKING CLASS PLEASE? Superiority is such an awesome, amazing system, it'd be nice to be able to use it on LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE but one single subclass of one single class that anyone who loves Superiority has already run into the ground. A Superiority-based Ranger would be phenomenal, a Superiority-based rogue would be amazing. It'd be interesting to see how they could incorporate the idea into Barbarian, as well, find some sort of primal spinoff.
Just...something! I'd do it myself but the homebrew tools on this website are an unholy abomination and there's no damned way to get functional Superiority dice on anything but a freaking Battlemaster. ARGH.
it's nowhere near as good, but if one class option and one feat could match an entire subclass that would be horrible design.
That is more a flaw with the battlemaster in that its entire subclass is the 3rd level feature, everything else is window dressing.
Sadly, that option is also limited solely to Fighters.
No it's not; any martial can take Martial Adept and Fighting Initiate->Superior Technique. Grabbing both will give you 3 maneuvers and 2d6 per short rest.
I wouldn't say no to a buff (very likely the former will become a half-feat in 2024 at least) but they're there.
Ohhh my god, this thread is joke. I will try to contain my illogical rage.
So, some thoughts on this 'basic bonk' debate. Firstly: Yes, it is true that martials have an option other than "bonk". It is also true that the fact that they have that option is basically irrelevant. No one is truly arguing that fighters or monks have exactly one option all of the time, or even only a few. In a sandbox-ish game like DnD, the commoners have just as many options as the 20th level wizard: Infinite(or more accurately, as many as can be imagined). But because DnD is a game with rules, and books, and some basic structure, it DOESN'T MATTER. If improvised actions negated the need for real abilities or actually made characters more than one dimensional point and shoots, then we wouldn't be playing DnD, would we? There are plenty of TTRPG systems that are almost completely improvised, or heck, we could just play pretend like toddlers at a playground. But we don't do that, because DnD is based around the idea that structure in mechanics leads to a compelling game in which many things are possible WITHOUT just making things up. I'm not saying that improvised actions are bad because they aren't. They are a great piece of DnD that allow for diverse games and fun moments that wouldn't happen otherwise. But they aren't the core of the game, and they aren't even close. If your table plays with improvised actions as a key mechanic, good on you. But at that point, you probably shouldn't bother playing DnD when other systems are so much more well suited to that kind of roleplaying. There is a cool system named GURPS that's super flexible and allows for you to do that often. But guess what, DnD is a smash hit phenomenon and I didn't hear about GURPS till I started writing this post while talking to some friends. Anyways, I'm rambling here. But very basically, imagination is not a substitute for a deep power imbalance in a flawed game. Stop pretending that all martials can be versatile, because while that's technically true, it's like comparing a toddlers writing skills to Shakespeares.
PS: Please note that while I disagree with basically everything you have said at a fundamental level Psyren, I don't have anything against you as a person and this is not a personal attack.
PPS: Please excuse any spelling mistakes or any unclear wording, I'm only human and editing DnDbeyond posts doesn't seem like the best use of my time.
If your table plays with improvised actions as a key mechanic, good on you. But at that point, you probably shouldn't bother playing DnD when other systems are so much more well suited to that kind of roleplaying.
Nah, we'll keep playing and enjoying D&D, but thanks for the suggestion!
PS: Please note that while I disagree with basically everything you have said at a fundamental level Psyren, I don't have anything against you as a person and this is not a personal attack.
None taken! Anyone is as free to disagree with me as they are with the rulebook itself.
If your table plays with improvised actions as a key mechanic, good on you. But at that point, you probably shouldn't bother playing DnD when other systems are so much more well suited to that kind of roleplaying.
Nah, we'll keep playing and enjoying D&D, but thanks for the suggestion!
This is a strawman. I did not say that improvised actions were not meant to be used in D&D, but your only response to anything I said was based on that false premise. I'm willing to have my views challenged here, I don't have some sort of moral obligation to dislike martials. But when you respond to valid arguments with a strawman and some passive aggressiveness, you waste your time and mine. Literally two sentences before what you selectively quoted I say: "I'm not saying that improvised actions are bad because they aren't. They are a great piece of DnD that allow for diverse games and fun moments that wouldn't happen otherwise". If you are going to use dishonest tactics and misrepresent what I say, do a better job of it please.
If your table plays with improvised actions as a key mechanic, good on you. But at that point, you probably shouldn't bother playing DnD when other systems are so much more well suited to that kind of roleplaying.
Nah, we'll keep playing and enjoying D&D, but thanks for the suggestion!
This is a strawman. I did not say that improvised actions were not meant to be used in D&D, but your only response to anything I said was based on that false premise. I'm willing to have my views challenged here, I don't have some sort of moral obligation to dislike martials. But when you respond to valid arguments with a strawman and some passive aggressiveness, you waste your time and mine. Literally two sentences before what you selectively quoted I say: "I'm not saying that improvised actions are bad because they aren't. They are a great piece of DnD that allow for diverse games and fun moments that wouldn't happen otherwise". If you are going to use dishonest tactics and misrepresent what I say, do a better job of it please.
You're accusing me of passive-aggression while saying "you probably shouldn't bother playing D&D." How is that not passive-aggressive?
And no, your arguments are not valid. D&D is capable of both improvised and codified play; The designers not just expecting but actively encouraging us to use both is reasonable. I don't need to go play GURPS or Fate or Werewolf just because I recognize that fact. (The irony being that GURPS is far, far more extensively codified than anything in 5e.)
The issue with relying on improvised actions to provide an alternative to Basic Bonk, Psyren, is that improvised actions require the DM to do a lot of extra work to provide situations wherein those actions are a thing. They have to invent combats where attacking the enemy isn't the only/best way to advance, and they have to do it in a way that doesn't invalidate attacking. After all, it doesn't improve the situation at all to invent a combat where a specific improvised action becomes the new obvious default. What people want is for there to be interesting moment-to-moment decision-making and gameplay in ordinary combat, which improvised actions can't really provide.
Sure, a DM might approve of Cinematic Stunts or the like, but pulling off a Cool Cinematic Stunt is cool once. Every time that stunt is repeated it loses a huge chunk of cool factor, if it doesn't lose all of that factor the second time someone does it. Telling martial players they can do a cool thing once per combat when the spellcasters can do cool stuff every round kinda sucks, and furthermore asking players to come up with zany, off-the-wall nonsense every round to justify a different Cinematic Stunt quickly gets exhausting. It stops being Cool quite quickly - speaking from experience.
Improvised actions are certainly a tool in the toolbox, and good players will keep them in mind. But they're not a solution to martials being boring and restricted solely to Basic Bonk.
The issue with relying on improvised actions to provide an alternative to Basic Bonk, Psyren, is that improvised actions require the DM to do a lot of extra work to provide situations wherein those actions are a thing. They have to invent combats where attacking the enemy isn't the only/best way to advance, and they have to do it in a way that doesn't invalidate attacking. After all, it doesn't improve the situation at all to invent a combat where a specific improvised action becomes the new obvious default. What people want is for there to be interesting moment-to-moment decision-making and gameplay in ordinary combat, which improvised actions can't really provide.
Sure, a DM might approve of Cinematic Stunts or the like, but pulling off a Cool Cinematic Stunt is cool once. Every time that stunt is repeated it loses a huge chunk of cool factor, if it doesn't lose all of that factor the second time someone does it. Telling martial players they can do a cool thing once per combat when the spellcasters can do cool stuff every round kinda sucks, and furthermore asking players to come up with zany, off-the-wall nonsense every round to justify a different Cinematic Stunt quickly gets exhausting. It stops being Cool quite quickly - speaking from experience.
Improvised actions are certainly a tool in the toolbox, and good players will keep them in mind. But they're not a solution to martials being boring and restricted solely to Basic Bonk.
Right, and that's why feats and subclasses and items exist too.
I'm not saying things like Battlemaster and Wildheart shouldn't exist; I'm saying that things like Champion and Berserker should. The straightforward options have just as much right to be in the game as the intricate ones.
The issue with relying on improvised actions to provide an alternative to Basic Bonk, Psyren, is that improvised actions require the DM to do a lot of extra work to provide situations wherein those actions are a thing. They have to invent combats where attacking the enemy isn't the only/best way to advance, and they have to do it in a way that doesn't invalidate attacking. After all, it doesn't improve the situation at all to invent a combat where a specific improvised action becomes the new obvious default. What people want is for there to be interesting moment-to-moment decision-making and gameplay in ordinary combat, which improvised actions can't really provide.
Sure, a DM might approve of Cinematic Stunts or the like, but pulling off a Cool Cinematic Stunt is cool once. Every time that stunt is repeated it loses a huge chunk of cool factor, if it doesn't lose all of that factor the second time someone does it. Telling martial players they can do a cool thing once per combat when the spellcasters can do cool stuff every round kinda sucks, and furthermore asking players to come up with zany, off-the-wall nonsense every round to justify a different Cinematic Stunt quickly gets exhausting. It stops being Cool quite quickly - speaking from experience.
Improvised actions are certainly a tool in the toolbox, and good players will keep them in mind. But they're not a solution to martials being boring and restricted solely to Basic Bonk.
Right, and that's why feats and subclasses and items exist too.
I'm not saying things like Battlemaster and Wildheart shouldn't exist; I'm saying that things like Champion and Berserker should. The straightforward options have just as much right to be in the game as the intricate ones.
Okay but improvised actions are more complex than very basic codified actions. And something like saying cunning strike is very straightforward. On a martial without sneak attack dice to give up it might be something like drop damage die by one and add this effect, or don't add strength mod for damage and do this effect. Options like this are far more straightforward to hey you can potentially make shit up and maybe the DM will let something cool happen. There seems to be this weird idea that a large segment of the D&D population is virtually brain dead and can't do something breathtakingly simple like choose to trip attack which has some minor modification on their damage. And they still have the option to basic bonk if that is what they want.
Okay but improvised actions are more complex than very basic codified actions. And something like saying cunning strike is very straightforward. On a martial without sneak attack dice to give up it might be something like drop damage die by one and add this effect, or don't add strength mod for damage and do this effect. Options like this are far more straightforward to hey you can potentially make shit up and maybe the DM will let something cool happen. There seems to be this weird idea that a large segment of the D&D population is virtually brain dead and can't do something breathtakingly simple like choose to trip attack which has some minor modification on their damage. And they still have the option to basic bonk if that is what they want.
Per Crawford, Cunning Strike only exists because Rogue gets almost nothing combat-wise from 3rd to 9th level - or for some subclasses, 3rd to 13th level! CS is filling a hole that Fighter doesn't have.
If they created some kind of baseline maneuver system for all Fighters I wouldn't quit the game or anything - but I can understand why they don't feel it's necessary either.
Right, and that's why feats and subclasses and items exist too.
I'm not saying things like Battlemaster and Wildheart shouldn't exist; I'm saying that things like Champion and Berserker should. The straightforward options have just as much right to be in the game as the intricate ones.
I've said it before - the problem with this view that folks like BoringBard kept pushing? I.e. "the base class should be as absolutely simple, boring, basic, and uninspired as is absolutely humanly possible, and IF some stupid dumb people need more than just rolling attacks and doing damage we can make ONE, MAYBE two subclasses that have an option or two"?
The people who're looking for these options are looking for options. They want variety, they want to do new things, try new things, discover new ways to play. Being told 'you can only do Interesting Things by playing ONE subclass of ONE class, and everything else needs to be oversimplified to the point of stupefaction' sucks. Especially because the people desperate for "lemme just roll attacks and do damage, please..." are specifically anti-options. They don't WANT to play anything else. They will happily run a Champion fighter every single campaign and never pine for anything else because that's their comfort zone, and that sort of player is real big on comfort zone.
The mix should go the other way around - there should be one class/subclass devoted to catching the people who can't be bothered to do anything more than roll attacks and do damage, and the other options in the game should be tailored to provide more meat on their bones. As opposed to...lemme go count.......seven of the current ten (official) Fighter subclasses and EVERY Ranger subclass being super ultra mega simple so as not to confuse people who will A.) never play Ranger, ever, and B.) never play anything but a blurdy Champion fighter anyways.
Right, and that's why feats and subclasses and items exist too.
I'm not saying things like Battlemaster and Wildheart shouldn't exist; I'm saying that things like Champion and Berserker should. The straightforward options have just as much right to be in the game as the intricate ones.
I've said it before - the problem with this view that folks like BoringBard kept pushing? I.e. "the base class should be as absolutely simple, boring, basic, and uninspired as is absolutely humanly possible, and IF some stupid dumb people need more than just rolling attacks and doing damage we can make ONE, MAYBE two subclasses that have an option or two"?
The people who're looking for these options are looking for options. They want variety, they want to do new things, try new things, discover new ways to play. Being told 'you can only do Interesting Things by playing ONE subclass of ONE class, and everything else needs to be oversimplified to the point of stupefaction' sucks. Especially because the people desperate for "lemme just roll attacks and do damage, please..." are specifically anti-options. They don't WANT to play anything else. They will happily run a Champion fighter every single campaign and never pine for anything else because that's their comfort zone, and that sort of player is real big on comfort zone.
The mix should go the other way around - there should be one class/subclass devoted to catching the people who can't be bothered to do anything more than roll attacks and do damage, and the other options in the game should be tailored to provide more meat on their bones. As opposed to...lemme go count.......seven of the current ten (official) Fighter subclasses and EVERY Ranger subclass being super ultra mega simple so as not to confuse people who will A.) never play Ranger, ever, and B.) never play anything but a blurdy Champion fighter anyways.
I'm not against more complex subclasses being made; I'm all for it. Rune Knight is great! Psi Warrior is great! Echo Knight is great! More of that!
But if the base class is made complex too, then that becomes the new floor. That's all I'm saying.
In addition, I agree with you that we don't need a bunch of subclasses on par with Champion; PDK, Samurai, Cavalier, and even Brawler could probably all be replicated using Champion, and the right feats. In my UA7 feedback I suggested they redesign Arcane Archer instead of a concept as narrow as Brawler. (I think a Champion with Tavern Brawler can do most of what Brawler does already, for example.)
Most fighter subclasses do have lots of options in combat not just Battlemaster : EK, Rune Knight, Battlemaster, Psi Warrior, Arcane Archer (this needs more uses of it), Gunslinger.
Even Cavalier has some tactical play with positioning to maximize their extra attacks from Unwavering Mark.
Only Champion and Samurai have basically no tactical options in combat in their subclass. So Yurei you already have your wish - only 2 subclasses for people who want just basic boink and lots of options for people who want tactical choices and the ones with tactical choices are also the most powerful subclasses.
And why are you holding up Wildheart as an example of a subclass with tactical choices? It is not one, it has a bunch of options during character creation but all it has is boinking in combat because Barbarian is actually the class that is designed to be the least tactical - All fighters get extra feats which they have free choice over, and a fighting style which they get free choice over, and they get Second Wind and Action Surge which they have to choose when is best to use. Barbarians just Rage, run into melee and hit stuff which whatever weapon they are holding, they don't have any class features that give options during character creation (except for the Wild heart and Storm Herald subclasses). Their only two choices in combat in the base class is whether to rage or not (answer = yes) and whether to use Reckless attack (answer = yes unless they already have advantage). The only subclass that significant strategic options in combat is the newly created World Tree one, the best any of the current options have is Ancestral Guardian and who they choose to use their soft-taunt on.
So Barbarian is your "basic boink" class not Fighter, and in exchange for that simplicity they get to be the absolute best at boinking which is why Beserker is now well into the 80% approval by the community.
Which brings be back to my previous point that this isn't an argument based on reason, the people arguing for "more choices other than basic boink" don't actually want that. They want Battlemaster maneuvers on all fighters, nothing else will please them, despite the fact that Battlemaster maneuvers are an illusion of choice with only 2 right answers depending on your preferred playstyle : Riposte + Precise Attack if melee, Menacing Attack + Precise Attack if ranged. Though I guess now that power attacks are gone, the right answer is Riposte + Menacing attack in melee, and Menacing attack +Trip Attack if ranged (or Commander's Strike for both of them if you have a Rogue in the party).
...Battlemaster maneuvers are an illusion of choice with only 2 right answers depending on your preferred playstyle : Riposte + Precise Attack if melee, Menacing Attack + Precise Attack if ranged. Though I guess now that power attacks are gone, the right answer is Riposte + Menacing attack in melee, and Menacing attack +Trip Attack if ranged (or Commander's Strike for both of them if you have a Rogue in the party).
I play a battlemaster fighter and i find that statement to be a load of clap-trap. "2 right answers" what absolute garbage.
Most fighter subclasses do have lots of options in combat not just Battlemaster : EK, Rune Knight, Battlemaster, Psi Warrior, Arcane Archer (this needs more uses of it), Gunslinger.
Even Cavalier has some tactical play with positioning to maximize their extra attacks from Unwavering Mark.
Only Champion and Samurai have basically no tactical options in combat in their subclass. So Yurei you already have your wish - only 2 subclasses for people who want just basic boink and lots of options for people who want tactical choices and the ones with tactical choices are also the most powerful subclasses.
Which brings be back to my previous point that this isn't an argument based on reason, the people arguing for "more choices other than basic boink" don't actually want that. They want Battlemaster maneuvers on all fighters, nothing else will please them, despite the fact that Battlemaster maneuvers are an illusion of choice with only 2 right answers depending on your preferred playstyle : Riposte + Precise Attack if melee, Menacing Attack + Precise Attack if ranged. Though I guess now that power attacks are gone, the right answer is Riposte + Menacing attack in melee, and Menacing attack +Trip Attack if ranged (or Commander's Strike for both of them if you have a Rogue in the party).
Focusing on your fighter comments for the moment.. you claim the tactical subclasses are the better ones, but I would heavily contest that. Samurai especially is a menace even at low levels - with the power attacks you could get 70+ damage at level 6 with pretty reliable hit chance. Champion with elven accuracy can get 40% plus crit chance, which adds up to a lot of damage. Arcane Archer is, frankly, shit. Cavalier is very clearly geared to hit and run play, which aren’t really that fun and do not require much thought to be honest. Psi Warrior and Rune Knight, sure, very tactical, but they aren’t the strongest fighter subclasses by a long shot. You argue action surge and second wind are tactical but say Samurai, which has a limited-use attack action and defence-buffing feature, has no tactical options. Gunslinger is obscenely powerful at any table with guns that isn’t Matthew Mercer’s. Echo Knight is also equally as powerful. Eldritch Knight, arguably the most tactical of them all due to spells, is sub-par preplaytest and on-par post playtest.
You then strawman. Manoeuvres are not the only option - special weapon actions just for martials would be nice, or actual different viable things to do with my action besides attack. And sure, if you minmax, there’s better options. But that’s like arguing fighter subclasses are an illusion of choice because Samurai, Echo Knight, and Battlemaster are stronger than the rest, and therefore we shouldn’t need them at all. There’s always going to be better and worse options, that’s how the game will work. It’s not something you can avoid. Closing the gap between casters and martials would be nice, though, and giving martials versatility would be even better. Most d&d players don’t tactically evaluate their choices; the situation you present with everyone using the same manoeuvres is very unlikely to occur.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Goalpost shift again. The original complaint was against "nothing to do but basic bonk" - not that special actions/ability checks can be replicated on multiple classes.
If Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue and Monk all have equal access to attempt the same checks/special attacks, e.g. disarming opponents, sundering their equipment, tripping them, demoralizing them, throwing dirt in their eyes etc. - which they do - that's still more than "basic bonk." The fact that access to those combat actions and more is common to all of them is irrelevant to the original complaint.
And if absolutely none of those activities, or indeed anything else that isn't "basic bonk" are ever useful at your table - that is a table issue, not a rulebook issue.
Ruling on the fly is the essence of 5e. PHB 193: "Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter...The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character's ability scores."
Why would it generate bad feeling? This sounds like another table issue again. Mine has no issues with adjudicating improvised actions; the rules for this are on PHB 174 and DMG 238.
I didn't say "casters are too complex for newer players" anywhere in my post 🤨 nor did I disparage anyone. When I wrote about arrays of base class buttons, I was referencing Jeremy Crawford's own words, such as this quote:
"We've seen some requests for the Battlemaster to be dismantled and its maneuvers to be given to the base class; that is something we explored early on for our work on the 2024 Player's Handbook. We ended up not going in that direction, and instead introducing Weapon Mastery for, for a number of reasons, but the two main ones I'll talk about right now... first off, people love this subclass, and what we did not want to do is just eliminate it for the sake of all the other subclasses. Also, the Battlemaster represents this style of play - having this pool of dice that you keep track of to spend on a variety of different micro-effects - it's just not something that's attractive to everyone who wants to be a Fighter. We know from nearly a decade now of going through player feedback, there are many people who play Fighters that have no interest in what the Battlemaster does."
Crawford, like myself, is acknowledging the fact that giving all Fighters BM-levels of combat granularity is not something that would be good for the game, never mind giving all martials everywhere such a thing.
Okay fine cool can we get more than ONE FREAKING SUBCLASS OF ONE FREAKING CLASS PLEASE? Superiority is such an awesome, amazing system, it'd be nice to be able to use it on LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE but one single subclass of one single class that anyone who loves Superiority has already run into the ground. A Superiority-based Ranger would be phenomenal, a Superiority-based rogue would be amazing. It'd be interesting to see how they could incorporate the idea into Barbarian, as well, find some sort of primal spinoff.
Just...something! I'd do it myself but the homebrew tools on this website are an unholy abomination and there's no damned way to get functional Superiority dice on anything but a freaking Battlemaster. ARGH.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm not opposed, but I think there's better ways to go about it. We already have two feats that can get you Battlemaster moves onto any martial - Martial Adept and Fighting Initiate. What I am in favor of WotC doing is buffing these two, and then giving every martial bonus ASIs to more easily pick them up - say, 3 total for Fighter, 2 for Rogue/Barbarian/Monk, and 1 for Ranger and Paladin. Using feats to engage with the system would allow each table to customize the exact level of engagement they're comfortable with, and tables that don't play with feats at all would still benefit by allowing martials to buff their mental/off-stats.
Alas, the monk once again gets left behind, by superiority this time, to sit huddled in the corner wiping away tears of despair from their cheeks.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The Swords Bard comes fairly close, and the monk is basically built around something similar (although the monk is done......poorly), but I agree a similar system would be great to see on a Rogue or a Ranger. The only other option is to play a different subclass of Fighter and take the Superior Technique combat style (granting one maneuver and one die, a d6) and also grabbing the Martial Adept feat (granting 2 more maneuvers and one more die, another d6) which would grant SOME of the Battlemaster options to a different Fighter subclass - it's nowhere near as good, but if one class option and one feat could match an entire subclass that would be horrible design. Sadly, that option is also limited solely to Fighters.
That is more a flaw with the battlemaster in that its entire subclass is the 3rd level feature, everything else is window dressing.
No it's not; any martial can take Martial Adept and Fighting Initiate->Superior Technique. Grabbing both will give you 3 maneuvers and 2d6 per short rest.
I wouldn't say no to a buff (very likely the former will become a half-feat in 2024 at least) but they're there.
Ohhh my god, this thread is joke. I will try to contain my illogical rage.
So, some thoughts on this 'basic bonk' debate. Firstly: Yes, it is true that martials have an option other than "bonk". It is also true that the fact that they have that option is basically irrelevant. No one is truly arguing that fighters or monks have exactly one option all of the time, or even only a few. In a sandbox-ish game like DnD, the commoners have just as many options as the 20th level wizard: Infinite(or more accurately, as many as can be imagined). But because DnD is a game with rules, and books, and some basic structure, it DOESN'T MATTER. If improvised actions negated the need for real abilities or actually made characters more than one dimensional point and shoots, then we wouldn't be playing DnD, would we? There are plenty of TTRPG systems that are almost completely improvised, or heck, we could just play pretend like toddlers at a playground. But we don't do that, because DnD is based around the idea that structure in mechanics leads to a compelling game in which many things are possible WITHOUT just making things up. I'm not saying that improvised actions are bad because they aren't. They are a great piece of DnD that allow for diverse games and fun moments that wouldn't happen otherwise. But they aren't the core of the game, and they aren't even close. If your table plays with improvised actions as a key mechanic, good on you. But at that point, you probably shouldn't bother playing DnD when other systems are so much more well suited to that kind of roleplaying. There is a cool system named GURPS that's super flexible and allows for you to do that often. But guess what, DnD is a smash hit phenomenon and I didn't hear about GURPS till I started writing this post while talking to some friends. Anyways, I'm rambling here. But very basically, imagination is not a substitute for a deep power imbalance in a flawed game. Stop pretending that all martials can be versatile, because while that's technically true, it's like comparing a toddlers writing skills to Shakespeares.
PS: Please note that while I disagree with basically everything you have said at a fundamental level Psyren, I don't have anything against you as a person and this is not a personal attack.
PPS: Please excuse any spelling mistakes or any unclear wording, I'm only human and editing DnDbeyond posts doesn't seem like the best use of my time.
N/A
Nah, we'll keep playing and enjoying D&D, but thanks for the suggestion!
I'm also left wondering why you think those sidebars were written in the D&D Player's Handbook if they... weren't meant to be used in D&D?
None taken! Anyone is as free to disagree with me as they are with the rulebook itself.
This is a strawman. I did not say that improvised actions were not meant to be used in D&D, but your only response to anything I said was based on that false premise. I'm willing to have my views challenged here, I don't have some sort of moral obligation to dislike martials. But when you respond to valid arguments with a strawman and some passive aggressiveness, you waste your time and mine. Literally two sentences before what you selectively quoted I say:
"I'm not saying that improvised actions are bad because they aren't. They are a great piece of DnD that allow for diverse games and fun moments that wouldn't happen otherwise". If you are going to use dishonest tactics and misrepresent what I say, do a better job of it please.
N/A
You're accusing me of passive-aggression while saying "you probably shouldn't bother playing D&D." How is that not passive-aggressive?
And no, your arguments are not valid. D&D is capable of both improvised and codified play; The designers not just expecting but actively encouraging us to use both is reasonable. I don't need to go play GURPS or Fate or Werewolf just because I recognize that fact. (The irony being that GURPS is far, far more extensively codified than anything in 5e.)
The issue with relying on improvised actions to provide an alternative to Basic Bonk, Psyren, is that improvised actions require the DM to do a lot of extra work to provide situations wherein those actions are a thing. They have to invent combats where attacking the enemy isn't the only/best way to advance, and they have to do it in a way that doesn't invalidate attacking. After all, it doesn't improve the situation at all to invent a combat where a specific improvised action becomes the new obvious default. What people want is for there to be interesting moment-to-moment decision-making and gameplay in ordinary combat, which improvised actions can't really provide.
Sure, a DM might approve of Cinematic Stunts or the like, but pulling off a Cool Cinematic Stunt is cool once. Every time that stunt is repeated it loses a huge chunk of cool factor, if it doesn't lose all of that factor the second time someone does it. Telling martial players they can do a cool thing once per combat when the spellcasters can do cool stuff every round kinda sucks, and furthermore asking players to come up with zany, off-the-wall nonsense every round to justify a different Cinematic Stunt quickly gets exhausting. It stops being Cool quite quickly - speaking from experience.
Improvised actions are certainly a tool in the toolbox, and good players will keep them in mind. But they're not a solution to martials being boring and restricted solely to Basic Bonk.
Please do not contact or message me.
Right, and that's why feats and subclasses and items exist too.
I'm not saying things like Battlemaster and Wildheart shouldn't exist; I'm saying that things like Champion and Berserker should. The straightforward options have just as much right to be in the game as the intricate ones.
Okay but improvised actions are more complex than very basic codified actions. And something like saying cunning strike is very straightforward. On a martial without sneak attack dice to give up it might be something like drop damage die by one and add this effect, or don't add strength mod for damage and do this effect. Options like this are far more straightforward to hey you can potentially make shit up and maybe the DM will let something cool happen. There seems to be this weird idea that a large segment of the D&D population is virtually brain dead and can't do something breathtakingly simple like choose to trip attack which has some minor modification on their damage. And they still have the option to basic bonk if that is what they want.
Per Crawford, Cunning Strike only exists because Rogue gets almost nothing combat-wise from 3rd to 9th level - or for some subclasses, 3rd to 13th level! CS is filling a hole that Fighter doesn't have.
If they created some kind of baseline maneuver system for all Fighters I wouldn't quit the game or anything - but I can understand why they don't feel it's necessary either.
I've said it before - the problem with this view that folks like BoringBard kept pushing? I.e. "the base class should be as absolutely simple, boring, basic, and uninspired as is absolutely humanly possible, and IF some stupid dumb people need more than just rolling attacks and doing damage we can make ONE, MAYBE two subclasses that have an option or two"?
The people who're looking for these options are looking for options. They want variety, they want to do new things, try new things, discover new ways to play. Being told 'you can only do Interesting Things by playing ONE subclass of ONE class, and everything else needs to be oversimplified to the point of stupefaction' sucks. Especially because the people desperate for "lemme just roll attacks and do damage, please..." are specifically anti-options. They don't WANT to play anything else. They will happily run a Champion fighter every single campaign and never pine for anything else because that's their comfort zone, and that sort of player is real big on comfort zone.
The mix should go the other way around - there should be one class/subclass devoted to catching the people who can't be bothered to do anything more than roll attacks and do damage, and the other options in the game should be tailored to provide more meat on their bones. As opposed to...lemme go count.......seven of the current ten (official) Fighter subclasses and EVERY Ranger subclass being super ultra mega simple so as not to confuse people who will A.) never play Ranger, ever, and B.) never play anything but a blurdy Champion fighter anyways.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm not against more complex subclasses being made; I'm all for it. Rune Knight is great! Psi Warrior is great! Echo Knight is great! More of that!
But if the base class is made complex too, then that becomes the new floor. That's all I'm saying.
In addition, I agree with you that we don't need a bunch of subclasses on par with Champion; PDK, Samurai, Cavalier, and even Brawler could probably all be replicated using Champion, and the right feats. In my UA7 feedback I suggested they redesign Arcane Archer instead of a concept as narrow as Brawler. (I think a Champion with Tavern Brawler can do most of what Brawler does already, for example.)
Sorry, but what are you guys talking about?
Most fighter subclasses do have lots of options in combat not just Battlemaster : EK, Rune Knight, Battlemaster, Psi Warrior, Arcane Archer (this needs more uses of it), Gunslinger.
Even Cavalier has some tactical play with positioning to maximize their extra attacks from Unwavering Mark.
Only Champion and Samurai have basically no tactical options in combat in their subclass. So Yurei you already have your wish - only 2 subclasses for people who want just basic boink and lots of options for people who want tactical choices and the ones with tactical choices are also the most powerful subclasses.
And why are you holding up Wildheart as an example of a subclass with tactical choices? It is not one, it has a bunch of options during character creation but all it has is boinking in combat because Barbarian is actually the class that is designed to be the least tactical - All fighters get extra feats which they have free choice over, and a fighting style which they get free choice over, and they get Second Wind and Action Surge which they have to choose when is best to use. Barbarians just Rage, run into melee and hit stuff which whatever weapon they are holding, they don't have any class features that give options during character creation (except for the Wild heart and Storm Herald subclasses). Their only two choices in combat in the base class is whether to rage or not (answer = yes) and whether to use Reckless attack (answer = yes unless they already have advantage). The only subclass that significant strategic options in combat is the newly created World Tree one, the best any of the current options have is Ancestral Guardian and who they choose to use their soft-taunt on.
So Barbarian is your "basic boink" class not Fighter, and in exchange for that simplicity they get to be the absolute best at boinking which is why Beserker is now well into the 80% approval by the community.
Which brings be back to my previous point that this isn't an argument based on reason, the people arguing for "more choices other than basic boink" don't actually want that. They want Battlemaster maneuvers on all fighters, nothing else will please them, despite the fact that Battlemaster maneuvers are an illusion of choice with only 2 right answers depending on your preferred playstyle : Riposte + Precise Attack if melee, Menacing Attack + Precise Attack if ranged. Though I guess now that power attacks are gone, the right answer is Riposte + Menacing attack in melee, and Menacing attack +Trip Attack if ranged (or Commander's Strike for both of them if you have a Rogue in the party).
I play a battlemaster fighter and i find that statement to be a load of clap-trap. "2 right answers" what absolute garbage.
Focusing on your fighter comments for the moment.. you claim the tactical subclasses are the better ones, but I would heavily contest that. Samurai especially is a menace even at low levels - with the power attacks you could get 70+ damage at level 6 with pretty reliable hit chance. Champion with elven accuracy can get 40% plus crit chance, which adds up to a lot of damage. Arcane Archer is, frankly, shit. Cavalier is very clearly geared to hit and run play, which aren’t really that fun and do not require much thought to be honest. Psi Warrior and Rune Knight, sure, very tactical, but they aren’t the strongest fighter subclasses by a long shot. You argue action surge and second wind are tactical but say Samurai, which has a limited-use attack action and defence-buffing feature, has no tactical options. Gunslinger is obscenely powerful at any table with guns that isn’t Matthew Mercer’s. Echo Knight is also equally as powerful. Eldritch Knight, arguably the most tactical of them all due to spells, is sub-par preplaytest and on-par post playtest.
You then strawman. Manoeuvres are not the only option - special weapon actions just for martials would be nice, or actual different viable things to do with my action besides attack. And sure, if you minmax, there’s better options. But that’s like arguing fighter subclasses are an illusion of choice because Samurai, Echo Knight, and Battlemaster are stronger than the rest, and therefore we shouldn’t need them at all. There’s always going to be better and worse options, that’s how the game will work. It’s not something you can avoid. Closing the gap between casters and martials would be nice, though, and giving martials versatility would be even better. Most d&d players don’t tactically evaluate their choices; the situation you present with everyone using the same manoeuvres is very unlikely to occur.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.