Oh you mean the no damage on your turn Buttons that everyone gets. Those aren’t really fun when the Battle Master can do them while dealing damage. Actually while dealing additional damage, you know because it’s spending a resource. Oh yeah a resource that Champion doesn’t even have.
Oh and while Chanpion has advantage on Athletics checks Battle Master has another skill proficiency and a tool so BM is still winning the versatility game. When Champion is getting a second fighting style which could be could be cool, BM is getting “hunters lore” I mean “know your enemy” which is what rangers should have gotten in their base class, but that’s another topic. So yeah Champion getting Hero Warrior at 10th is cool, but still isn’t a cool button to press. It’s as Kamchatmonk would probably say, “it’s Bonk with advantage.” BM has choices to make each turn.
1) I'm not arguing that Battlemaster isn't more appealing overall; I'd certainly rather play a Battlemaster than a Champion if those were my only two choices. That doesn't mean Champion doesn't deserve to exist. And just by posting about D&D on an internet forum all day you and I are in the minority of the playerbase anyhow.
2) Advantage on literally any check (or save) during a fight can easily beat one extra proficiency. It's not cut and dry is my point.
3) Most importantly - if all your DM lets you do in combat is "basic bonk," even after you've expressed to them that you're not having fun and would like to use the Improvising Actions /Improvising Contests sidebars from the Player's Handbook, then the problem is your DM, not the book.
Oh you mean the no damage on your turn Buttons that everyone gets. Those aren’t really fun when the Battle Master can do them while dealing damage. Actually while dealing additional damage, you know because it’s spending a resource. Oh yeah a resource that Champion doesn’t even have.
Oh and while Chanpion has advantage on Athletics checks Battle Master has another skill proficiency and a tool so BM is still winning the versatility game. When Champion is getting a second fighting style which could be could be cool, BM is getting “hunters lore” I mean “know your enemy” which is what rangers should have gotten in their base class, but that’s another topic. So yeah Champion getting Hero Warrior at 10th is cool, but still isn’t a cool button to press. It’s as Kamchatmonk would probably say, “it’s Bonk with advantage.” BM has choices to make each turn.
1) I'm not arguing that Battlemaster isn't more appealing overall; I'd certainly rather play a Battlemaster than a Champion if those were my only two choices. That doesn't mean Champion doesn't deserve to exist. And just by posting about D&D on an internet forum all day you and I are in the minority of the playerbase anyhow.
2) Advantage on literally any check (or save) during a fight can easily beat one extra proficiency. It's not cut and dry is my point.
3) Most importantly - if all your DM lets you do in combat is "basic bonk," even after you've expressed to them that you're not having fun and would like to use the Improvising Actions /Improvising Contests sidebars from the Player's Handbook, then the problem is your DM, not the book.
1) It’s not about being more appealing it’s about having more options each turn that all still do damage. I actually like what the Champion brings to the table, but imo it can bring more. I don’t want champion to not exist. I want it to exist better.
2)The advantage on any check isn’t until 10th level. I was comparing the extra skill to the advantage on Athletics at 3rd level. Both get a fruit at 3rd level it’s up to the individual if they prefer an apple or an orange. As for the 10th level ability, yes Champion has a good one but sadly unless people really start playing longer high level games they won’t get much use. Also it’s not really a choice of buttons. It’s really going to be used to bonk with advantage, or held for a saving throw.
3) No it’s a problem for the game designers, because your DM might let you improvised some actions but they can’t do things that are covered in the rules without it being homebrew. The most important part about this is below. The underlined portion kills a lot of combat improve since combat has the most written rules.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
3) No it’s a problem for the game designers, because your DM might let you improvised some actions but they can’t do things that are covered in the rules without it being homebrew. The most important part about this is below. The underlined portion kills a lot of combat improve since combat has the most written rules.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
And? Does your DM tell you nothing is possible if it's not detailed then? That's a them problem, not a designer problem.
3) No it’s a problem for the game designers, because your DM might let you improvised some actions but they can’t do things that are covered in the rules without it being homebrew. The most important part about this is below. The underlined portion kills a lot of combat improve since combat has the most written rules.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
And? Does your DM tell you nothing is possible if it's not detailed then? That's a them problem, not a designer problem.
The rules literally say things that aren’t written are possible, but things that are written must follow those rules. Please find me some cool things I can do with my Champion’s action that still deals damage, but isn’t in the rules. I can almost promise you there is a rule covering it. Which is a good thing. I DM and the last thing I want is a bunch of players trying to game the game for additional damage and conditions. If the Champion is to gain viable combat options it has to be written in the book.
The rules literally say things that aren’t written are possible, but things that are written must follow those rules. Please find me some cool things I can do with my Champion’s action that still deals damage, but isn’t in the rules.
Nice qualifier, but damage is not a problem for any competently-built Fighter. If you can't figure out a way to deal decent damage with 3-4 attacks and 2 extra feats, even as a Champion, then your character may be beyond anyone's help.
Before you attempted to shift the goalposts, the original complaint was "giving fighters something to do other than basic bonk." How about swinging from a chandelier? Slicing a tapestry so it entangles your foe? Covering their mouth in a grapple so they can't cast? Throwing your shield at a fleeing enemy's legs so they fall over? Are there written rules for any of those things, and if not, have you asked your DM about improvising any of them?
I DM and the last thing I want is a bunch of players trying to game the game for additional damage and conditions. If the Champion is to gain viable combat options it has to be written in the book.
Improvised Actions and Improvised Contests are written in the book. PHB 193 and 195 respectively.
The rules literally say things that aren’t written are possible, but things that are written must follow those rules. Please find me some cool things I can do with my Champion’s action that still deals damage, but isn’t in the rules.
Nice qualifier, but damage is not a problem for any competently-built Fighter. If you can't figure out a way to deal decent damage with 3-4 attacks and 2 extra feats, even as a Champion, then your character may be beyond anyone's help.
Before you attempted to shift the goalposts, the original complaint was "giving fighters something to do other than basic bonk." How about swinging from a chandelier? Slicing a tapestry so it entangles your foe? Covering their mouth in a grapple so they can't cast? Throwing your shield at a fleeing enemy's legs so they fall over? Are there written rules for any of those things, and if not, have you asked your DM about improvising any of them?
Pay attention that qualifier is in the very first post that started this whole conversation.
3) No it’s a problem for the game designers, because your DM might let you improvised some actions but they can’t do things that are covered in the rules without it being homebrew. The most important part about this is below. The underlined portion kills a lot of combat improve since combat has the most written rules.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
And? Does your DM tell you nothing is possible if it's not detailed then? That's a them problem, not a designer problem.
The rules literally say things that aren’t written are possible, but things that are written must follow those rules. Please find me some cool things I can do with my Champion’s action that still deals damage, but isn’t in the rules. I can almost promise you there is a rule covering it. Which is a good thing. I DM and the last thing I want is a bunch of players trying to game the game for additional damage and conditions. If the Champion is to gain viable combat options it has to be written in the book.
Leaping off a balcony, grabbing a chandelier and bringing it all crashing down on the head of an enemy. Kicking an enemy off a bridge/cliff. Ramming the enemy with a vehicle (cart, boat, dirigrigible), throwing sand into the enemy's eyes, pushing/pouring a cauldron of boiling soup on an enemy, grappling an enemy and dragging them into a campfire, picking up and throwing an enemy at another enemy, collapsing a tent on top of an enemy, pulling a rug out from under the feet of an enemy, clicking an immovable rod inside a giant monster...
Grapple a wizard and drag them over to an out of control water elemental and hold the wizards head inside the elemental (toilet swirlies) so that they are drowning
3) No it’s a problem for the game designers, because your DM might let you improvised some actions but they can’t do things that are covered in the rules without it being homebrew. The most important part about this is below. The underlined portion kills a lot of combat improve since combat has the most written rules.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
And? Does your DM tell you nothing is possible if it's not detailed then? That's a them problem, not a designer problem.
The rules literally say things that aren’t written are possible, but things that are written must follow those rules. Please find me some cool things I can do with my Champion’s action that still deals damage, but isn’t in the rules. I can almost promise you there is a rule covering it. Which is a good thing. I DM and the last thing I want is a bunch of players trying to game the game for additional damage and conditions. If the Champion is to gain viable combat options it has to be written in the book.
Leaping off a balcony, grabbing a chandelier and bringing it all crashing down on the head of an enemy. Kicking an enemy off a bridge/cliff. Ramming the enemy with a vehicle (cart, boat, dirigrigible), throwing sand into the enemy's eyes, pushing/pouring a cauldron of boiling soup on an enemy, grappling an enemy and dragging them into a campfire, picking up and throwing an enemy at another enemy, collapsing a tent on top of an enemy, pulling a rug out from under the feet of an enemy, clicking an immovable rod inside a giant monster...
Leaping off a balcony is covered in the jump rules, grabbing the chandelier is clearly covered by Athletics, but whether it would come crashing down would be improvised. Problem that’s not in every scene. That only comes up in rooms with a chandelier. Also is the chandelier just an improvised weapon? There are rules for that. Kicking an enemy off a bridge is a Shove Action in 5e and part of an unarmed strike in 5eR. Well unless you where already driving that cart at the beginning of your turn it’s going to be rough, because there are a bunch of rules about mounting and controlling animals. Throwing sand in an enemies eyes isn’t going to cause damage. There are rules for interacting with objects and improvised weapon rules. There are rules about grappling and moving an enemy and rules that cover how much damage a fire does. I wouldn’t advise doing this passed tier 1. It’s really poor damage. To pick up an enemy is a grapple. Throwing them would be a shove, trying to use them to hit another enemy would be an improvised weapon. Pulling a rug is a Strength check, if the creature falls prone is a Dex check, so I guess it’s improved buts it really just a ranged shove, no damage. Clicking an immovable rod inside a creature requires you have an immovable rod and you be inside a creature.
So you found like 2 things that aren’t Fully covered by the rules. Bonk by your own statements is the only correct choice in all these situations. Dead is the best condition.
Pay attention that qualifier is in the very first post that started this whole conversation.
And the post I was responding to was about "basic bonk."
Yes and they were talking about damage ei Basic Bonk. They didn’t want to shove, grapple, or some non damage option. They want another bonk, another cool way to do damage like cunning strikes, or BM maneuvers. You are the one trying to move goal post. It’s like they said they were tired of eating crackers and you showed them all the options of drinks. Thanks, but they were asking about food items on the menu. Everybody so busy trying to be right on here they don’t read what the other person wrote.
grabbing the chandelier is clearly covered by Athletics
Grabbing chandeliers is not written in the rulebook anywhere. If that counts as "written," then everything is already written and your rule has no meaning.
grabbing the chandelier is clearly covered by Athletics
Grabbing chandeliers is not written in the rulebook anywhere. If that counts as "written," then everything is already written and your rule has no meaning.
They don't need a dozen bonks on every subclass. Asked and answered.
An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.
Athletics. Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping, or swimming. Examples include the following activities:
You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, or cling to a surface while something is trying to knock you off.
You try to jump an unusually long distance or pull off a stunt midjump.
You struggle to swim or stay afloat in treacherous currents, storm-tossed waves, or areas of thick seaweed. Or another creature tries to push or pull you underwater or otherwise interfere with your swimming.
I guess grabbing a chandelier isn’t pulling off a stunt mid jump. I would definitely classify it as that, but who am I. Also I actually gave that one some credit as being improvised since the question of if it would even come crashing down is wholly in the DMs control with no wrtitten rules. But again you were too worried about being right to read what I said. And intentionally shortened my statement so you could try to make a point. Lol
3) No it’s a problem for the game designers, because your DM might let you improvised some actions but they can’t do things that are covered in the rules without it being homebrew. The most important part about this is below. The underlined portion kills a lot of combat improve since combat has the most written rules.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
And? Does your DM tell you nothing is possible if it's not detailed then? That's a them problem, not a designer problem.
The rules literally say things that aren’t written are possible, but things that are written must follow those rules. Please find me some cool things I can do with my Champion’s action that still deals damage, but isn’t in the rules. I can almost promise you there is a rule covering it. Which is a good thing. I DM and the last thing I want is a bunch of players trying to game the game for additional damage and conditions. If the Champion is to gain viable combat options it has to be written in the book.
Leaping off a balcony, grabbing a chandelier and bringing it all crashing down on the head of an enemy. Kicking an enemy off a bridge/cliff. Ramming the enemy with a vehicle (cart, boat, dirigrigible), throwing sand into the enemy's eyes, pushing/pouring a cauldron of boiling soup on an enemy, grappling an enemy and dragging them into a campfire, picking up and throwing an enemy at another enemy, collapsing a tent on top of an enemy, pulling a rug out from under the feet of an enemy, clicking an immovable rod inside a giant monster...
Leaping off a balcony is covered in the jump rules, grabbing the chandelier is clearly covered by Athletics, but whether it would come crashing down would be improvised. Problem that’s not in every scene. That only comes up in rooms with a chandelier. Also is the chandelier just an improvised weapon? There are rules for that. Kicking an enemy off a bridge is a Shove Action in 5e and part of an unarmed strike in 5eR. Well unless you where already driving that cart at the beginning of your turn it’s going to be rough, because there are a bunch of rules about mounting and controlling animals. Throwing sand in an enemies eyes isn’t going to cause damage. There are rules for interacting with objects and improvised weapon rules. There are rules about grappling and moving an enemy and rules that cover how much damage a fire does. I wouldn’t advise doing this passed tier 1. It’s really poor damage. To pick up an enemy is a grapple. Throwing them would be a shove, trying to use them to hit another enemy would be an improvised weapon. Pulling a rug is a Strength check, if the creature falls prone is a Dex check, so I guess it’s improved buts it really just a ranged shove, no damage. Clicking an immovable rod inside a creature requires you have an immovable rod and you be inside a creature.
So you found like 2 things that aren’t Fully covered by the rules. Bonk by your own statements is the only correct choice in all these situations. Dead is the best condition.
If these are all covered by the rules, then please tell me the page number where it says how much damage ramming someone with horse and cart deals, and how much damage a falling chandalier deals, and that pulling a rug out from someone would cause a Dex check rather than a Dex saving throw, or that throwing an enemy is a shove (hint: the new Giant Barbarian has rules for picking up and throwing people and it's not the same as a shove, nor an improvised weapon), boiling soup quite obviously isn't doing to deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage so the improvised weapon rules are not appropriate.
If dead is the best condition then why is there an argument here about how all martials need something like Cunning Strike which gives up damage in order to impose conditions? Clearly people do not want martials to deal damage they want them to sacrifice that damage so they can pretend to be spellcasters and impose the same set of conditions as they do.
PS Object interactions are free, so where does it say that yanking on a rug would replace one of your attacks rather than be a free action?
basic rules do mention "chandelier" but only for hit points of the structure. jumping onto a chandelier does seem to reflect a "stunt mid jump" for athletics, whereas "other strength checks" is recommended for "tipping over a statue" (in lieu of shove (or topple??)) which suggests it might also apply to cutting the rope/chain holding the thing you're standing on. dmg provides improvised damage situations including a bookcase falling over or being hit by falling rubble, so something like that for effect of dropping it on a group. a breadcrumb trail of reasonable assumptions in the moment.
on the other hand, Fighter Cavalier has the Ferocious Charger ability to follow after an opponent and knock them prone with an attack. therefore, driving a cart over someone is too similarly detailed elsewhere in the rules. meaning that only cavaliers can do that, i guess. on the up-side, that's a real boon to public safety since we could just jail all the cavaliers and therefore never have another pedestrian accident in the big city.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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: providefeedback!
3) No it’s a problem for the game designers, because your DM might let you improvised some actions but they can’t do things that are covered in the rules without it being homebrew. The most important part about this is below. The underlined portion kills a lot of combat improve since combat has the most written rules.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
And? Does your DM tell you nothing is possible if it's not detailed then? That's a them problem, not a designer problem.
The rules literally say things that aren’t written are possible, but things that are written must follow those rules. Please find me some cool things I can do with my Champion’s action that still deals damage, but isn’t in the rules. I can almost promise you there is a rule covering it. Which is a good thing. I DM and the last thing I want is a bunch of players trying to game the game for additional damage and conditions. If the Champion is to gain viable combat options it has to be written in the book.
Leaping off a balcony, grabbing a chandelier and bringing it all crashing down on the head of an enemy. Kicking an enemy off a bridge/cliff. Ramming the enemy with a vehicle (cart, boat, dirigrigible), throwing sand into the enemy's eyes, pushing/pouring a cauldron of boiling soup on an enemy, grappling an enemy and dragging them into a campfire, picking up and throwing an enemy at another enemy, collapsing a tent on top of an enemy, pulling a rug out from under the feet of an enemy, clicking an immovable rod inside a giant monster...
Leaping off a balcony is covered in the jump rules, grabbing the chandelier is clearly covered by Athletics, but whether it would come crashing down would be improvised. Problem that’s not in every scene. That only comes up in rooms with a chandelier. Also is the chandelier just an improvised weapon? There are rules for that. Kicking an enemy off a bridge is a Shove Action in 5e and part of an unarmed strike in 5eR. Well unless you where already driving that cart at the beginning of your turn it’s going to be rough, because there are a bunch of rules about mounting and controlling animals. Throwing sand in an enemies eyes isn’t going to cause damage. There are rules for interacting with objects and improvised weapon rules. There are rules about grappling and moving an enemy and rules that cover how much damage a fire does. I wouldn’t advise doing this passed tier 1. It’s really poor damage. To pick up an enemy is a grapple. Throwing them would be a shove, trying to use them to hit another enemy would be an improvised weapon. Pulling a rug is a Strength check, if the creature falls prone is a Dex check, so I guess it’s improved buts it really just a ranged shove, no damage. Clicking an immovable rod inside a creature requires you have an immovable rod and you be inside a creature.
So you found like 2 things that aren’t Fully covered by the rules. Bonk by your own statements is the only correct choice in all these situations. Dead is the best condition.
If these are all covered by the rules, then please tell me the page number where it says how much damage ramming someone with horse and cart deals, and how much damage a falling chandalier deals, and that pulling a rug out from someone would cause a Dex check rather than a Dex saving throw, or that throwing an enemy is a shove (hint: the new Giant Barbarian has rules for picking up and throwing people and it's not the same as a shove, nor an improvised weapon), boiling soup quite obviously isn't doing to deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage so the improvised weapon rules are not appropriate.
If dead is the best condition then why is there an argument here about how all martials need something like Cunning Strike which gives up damage in order to impose conditions? Clearly people do not want martials to deal damage they want them to sacrifice that damage so they can pretend to be spellcasters and impose the same set of conditions as they do.
PS Object interactions are free, so where does it say that yanking on a rug would replace one of your attacks rather than be a free action?
Damage via ramming maybe isn't listed admittedly and hey cool you might have come up with something niche enough that will happen maybe once every 5 campaigns they can do that is not in the rules, but improvised weapon using the horses strength attribute would work imo if the player was trying to damage them a acrobatics/athletics test via horses strength is going for knock prone/shoves if multiple horses the horses get advantage unless of course you have a class ability that improves it like cavalier. Pulling the rug out, you are trying to knock them prone the rules detail that as a athletics v athletics or acrobatics test you are just flavoring that as I pull the rug out from under them and yes that takes an attack. Falling chandelier that is a improvised weapon attack that is a rule. Picking up and throwing people is a shove unless you have a class ability that improves it. Improvised weapons do not default to bludgeoning they default to what is appropriate for the weapon being used so 1d4 fire damage for boiling soup. And while yes dead is the best condition until fighters can one shot enemies a rider is very helpful in the meantime. Spellcasters conditions last for potentially the whole fight from a single action which is why its worth giving up damage for.
I guess grabbing a chandelier isn’t pulling off a stunt mid jump.
...So they CAN do stuff other than basic bonk then? Do they need to be written out explicitly or not? Your goalpost shifts are giving me whiplash.
Can you stop trying to be right and admit you wrong for once in your life, or just stop wasting peoples time by joining conversations in an attempt to manipulate the conversation so you can feel like you know something. The original post you responded to was not about doing things other than damage, it was about having other “bonk” options. I was not about finding obscure environmental options that barely “bonk.” They only have one Bonk option. The “basic bonk.” You have already admitted this when you said:
They don't need a dozen bonks on every subclass. Asked and answered.
It’s okay to have your view point, but you should just say that instead of trying to convince others they are wrong by manipulating the original statement.
They do not, I could expand on it but we've had that discussion over and over again. So let's just be clear here, a faction of players want battlemaster maneuvers on all martials because they want battlemaster maneuvers on all martials. There is no argument, no alternative mechanics, that they will ever accept other than "all martials are battlemasters now". Even if the proposed mechanics are more powerful, and more versatile, with more choices than battlemaster maneuvers they will still not be happy because it isn't just battlemaster maneuvers on all martials. The fact that battlemaster maneuvers are completely an illusion of choice where only 2 options are ever worth taking / using doesn't matter, because they want battlemaster maneuvers on all martial. End. of. Story.
PS Object interactions are free, so where does it say that yanking on a rug would replace one of your attacks rather than be a free action?
Hahahahahahahaha, Agilemind thinks pulling a rug from under another creature counts as a free object interaction. So the actual rule is that object interactions that are part of doing something else are free, but technically yanking a rug from under another creature would require you to take the Use an Object Action, which would use your entire action. I understanding the nuance of the rules would let you do it as part of one of your attacks. It is just a shove albeit at range. Please read all of PHB Chapter 9 considering you said you DM.
If dead is the best condition then why is there an argument here about how all martials need something like Cunning Strike which gives up damage in order to impose conditions? Clearly people do not want martials to deal damage they want them to sacrifice that damage so they can pretend to be spellcasters and impose the same set of conditions as they do
I wasn’t talking about people, I was talking about you specifically. You said dead is the best condition. You have posted similar in multiple threads. If you aren’t going to back your own opinions then why even have any? You, Agilemind, specifically are contradicting yourself right now and trying to avoid losing an argument. It’s fine if you don’t have a strong belief in your opinions.
1) I'm not arguing that Battlemaster isn't more appealing overall; I'd certainly rather play a Battlemaster than a Champion if those were my only two choices. That doesn't mean Champion doesn't deserve to exist. And just by posting about D&D on an internet forum all day you and I are in the minority of the playerbase anyhow.
2) Advantage on literally any check (or save) during a fight can easily beat one extra proficiency. It's not cut and dry is my point.
3) Most importantly - if all your DM lets you do in combat is "basic bonk," even after you've expressed to them that you're not having fun and would like to use the Improvising Actions /Improvising Contests sidebars from the Player's Handbook, then the problem is your DM, not the book.
1) It’s not about being more appealing it’s about having more options each turn that all still do damage. I actually like what the Champion brings to the table, but imo it can bring more. I don’t want champion to not exist. I want it to exist better.
2)The advantage on any check isn’t until 10th level. I was comparing the extra skill to the advantage on Athletics at 3rd level. Both get a fruit at 3rd level it’s up to the individual if they prefer an apple or an orange. As for the 10th level ability, yes Champion has a good one but sadly unless people really start playing longer high level games they won’t get much use. Also it’s not really a choice of buttons. It’s really going to be used to bonk with advantage, or held for a saving throw.
3) No it’s a problem for the game designers, because your DM might let you improvised some actions but they can’t do things that are covered in the rules without it being homebrew. The most important part about this is below. The underlined portion kills a lot of combat improve since combat has the most written rules.
And? Does your DM tell you nothing is possible if it's not detailed then? That's a them problem, not a designer problem.
The rules literally say things that aren’t written are possible, but things that are written must follow those rules. Please find me some cool things I can do with my Champion’s action that still deals damage, but isn’t in the rules. I can almost promise you there is a rule covering it. Which is a good thing. I DM and the last thing I want is a bunch of players trying to game the game for additional damage and conditions. If the Champion is to gain viable combat options it has to be written in the book.
Nice qualifier, but damage is not a problem for any competently-built Fighter. If you can't figure out a way to deal decent damage with 3-4 attacks and 2 extra feats, even as a Champion, then your character may be beyond anyone's help.
Before you attempted to shift the goalposts, the original complaint was "giving fighters something to do other than basic bonk." How about swinging from a chandelier? Slicing a tapestry so it entangles your foe? Covering their mouth in a grapple so they can't cast? Throwing your shield at a fleeing enemy's legs so they fall over? Are there written rules for any of those things, and if not, have you asked your DM about improvising any of them?
Improvised Actions and Improvised Contests are written in the book. PHB 193 and 195 respectively.
Pay attention that qualifier is in the very first post that started this whole conversation.
And the post I was responding to was about "basic bonk."
Leaping off a balcony, grabbing a chandelier and bringing it all crashing down on the head of an enemy. Kicking an enemy off a bridge/cliff. Ramming the enemy with a vehicle (cart, boat, dirigrigible), throwing sand into the enemy's eyes, pushing/pouring a cauldron of boiling soup on an enemy, grappling an enemy and dragging them into a campfire, picking up and throwing an enemy at another enemy, collapsing a tent on top of an enemy, pulling a rug out from under the feet of an enemy, clicking an immovable rod inside a giant monster...
Grapple a wizard and drag them over to an out of control water elemental and hold the wizards head inside the elemental (toilet swirlies) so that they are drowning
Leaping off a balcony is covered in the jump rules, grabbing the chandelier is clearly covered by Athletics, but whether it would come crashing down would be improvised. Problem that’s not in every scene. That only comes up in rooms with a chandelier. Also is the chandelier just an improvised weapon? There are rules for that.
Kicking an enemy off a bridge is a Shove Action in 5e and part of an unarmed strike in 5eR.
Well unless you where already driving that cart at the beginning of your turn it’s going to be rough, because there are a bunch of rules about mounting and controlling animals.
Throwing sand in an enemies eyes isn’t going to cause damage.
There are rules for interacting with objects and improvised weapon rules.
There are rules about grappling and moving an enemy and rules that cover how much damage a fire does. I wouldn’t advise doing this passed tier 1. It’s really poor damage.
To pick up an enemy is a grapple. Throwing them would be a shove, trying to use them to hit another enemy would be an improvised weapon.
Pulling a rug is a Strength check, if the creature falls prone is a Dex check, so I guess it’s improved buts it really just a ranged shove, no damage.
Clicking an immovable rod inside a creature requires you have an immovable rod and you be inside a creature.
So you found like 2 things that aren’t Fully covered by the rules. Bonk by your own statements is the only correct choice in all these situations. Dead is the best condition.
Yes and they were talking about damage ei Basic Bonk. They didn’t want to shove, grapple, or some non damage option. They want another bonk, another cool way to do damage like cunning strikes, or BM maneuvers. You are the one trying to move goal post. It’s like they said they were tired of eating crackers and you showed them all the options of drinks. Thanks, but they were asking about food items on the menu. Everybody so busy trying to be right on here they don’t read what the other person wrote.
Grabbing chandeliers is not written in the rulebook anywhere. If that counts as "written," then everything is already written and your rule has no meaning.
They don't need a dozen bonks on every subclass. Asked and answered.
An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.
Athletics. Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping, or swimming. Examples include the following activities:
I guess grabbing a chandelier isn’t pulling off a stunt mid jump. I would definitely classify it as that, but who am I. Also I actually gave that one some credit as being improvised since the question of if it would even come crashing down is wholly in the DMs control with no wrtitten rules. But again you were too worried about being right to read what I said. And intentionally shortened my statement so you could try to make a point. Lol
If these are all covered by the rules, then please tell me the page number where it says how much damage ramming someone with horse and cart deals, and how much damage a falling chandalier deals, and that pulling a rug out from someone would cause a Dex check rather than a Dex saving throw, or that throwing an enemy is a shove (hint: the new Giant Barbarian has rules for picking up and throwing people and it's not the same as a shove, nor an improvised weapon), boiling soup quite obviously isn't doing to deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage so the improvised weapon rules are not appropriate.
If dead is the best condition then why is there an argument here about how all martials need something like Cunning Strike which gives up damage in order to impose conditions? Clearly people do not want martials to deal damage they want them to sacrifice that damage so they can pretend to be spellcasters and impose the same set of conditions as they do.
PS Object interactions are free, so where does it say that yanking on a rug would replace one of your attacks rather than be a free action?
basic rules do mention "chandelier" but only for hit points of the structure. jumping onto a chandelier does seem to reflect a "stunt mid jump" for athletics, whereas "other strength checks" is recommended for "tipping over a statue" (in lieu of shove (or topple??)) which suggests it might also apply to cutting the rope/chain holding the thing you're standing on. dmg provides improvised damage situations including a bookcase falling over or being hit by falling rubble, so something like that for effect of dropping it on a group. a breadcrumb trail of reasonable assumptions in the moment.
on the other hand, Fighter Cavalier has the Ferocious Charger ability to follow after an opponent and knock them prone with an attack. therefore, driving a cart over someone is too similarly detailed elsewhere in the rules. meaning that only cavaliers can do that, i guess. on the up-side, that's a real boon to public safety since we could just jail all the cavaliers and therefore never have another pedestrian accident in the big city.
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!
Damage via ramming maybe isn't listed admittedly and hey cool you might have come up with something niche enough that will happen maybe once every 5 campaigns they can do that is not in the rules, but improvised weapon using the horses strength attribute would work imo if the player was trying to damage them a acrobatics/athletics test via horses strength is going for knock prone/shoves if multiple horses the horses get advantage unless of course you have a class ability that improves it like cavalier. Pulling the rug out, you are trying to knock them prone the rules detail that as a athletics v athletics or acrobatics test you are just flavoring that as I pull the rug out from under them and yes that takes an attack. Falling chandelier that is a improvised weapon attack that is a rule. Picking up and throwing people is a shove unless you have a class ability that improves it. Improvised weapons do not default to bludgeoning they default to what is appropriate for the weapon being used so 1d4 fire damage for boiling soup. And while yes dead is the best condition until fighters can one shot enemies a rider is very helpful in the meantime. Spellcasters conditions last for potentially the whole fight from a single action which is why its worth giving up damage for.
...So they CAN do stuff other than basic bonk then? Do they need to be written out explicitly or not? Your goalpost shifts are giving me whiplash.
Can you stop trying to be right and admit you wrong for once in your life, or just stop wasting peoples time by joining conversations in an attempt to manipulate the conversation so you can feel like you know something. The original post you responded to was not about doing things other than damage, it was about having other “bonk” options. I was not about finding obscure environmental options that barely “bonk.” They only have one Bonk option. The “basic bonk.” You have already admitted this when you said:
It’s okay to have your view point, but you should just say that instead of trying to convince others they are wrong by manipulating the original statement.
They do not, I could expand on it but we've had that discussion over and over again. So let's just be clear here, a faction of players want battlemaster maneuvers on all martials because they want battlemaster maneuvers on all martials. There is no argument, no alternative mechanics, that they will ever accept other than "all martials are battlemasters now". Even if the proposed mechanics are more powerful, and more versatile, with more choices than battlemaster maneuvers they will still not be happy because it isn't just battlemaster maneuvers on all martials. The fact that battlemaster maneuvers are completely an illusion of choice where only 2 options are ever worth taking / using doesn't matter, because they want battlemaster maneuvers on all martial. End. of. Story.
Hahahahahahahaha, Agilemind thinks pulling a rug from under another creature counts as a free object interaction. So the actual rule is that object interactions that are part of doing something else are free, but technically yanking a rug from under another creature would require you to take the Use an Object Action, which would use your entire action. I understanding the nuance of the rules would let you do it as part of one of your attacks. It is just a shove albeit at range. Please read all of PHB Chapter 9 considering you said you DM.
I wasn’t talking about people, I was talking about you specifically. You said dead is the best condition. You have posted similar in multiple threads. If you aren’t going to back your own opinions then why even have any? You, Agilemind, specifically are contradicting yourself right now and trying to avoid losing an argument. It’s fine if you don’t have a strong belief in your opinions.