This is getting way off topic now. Whether or not some written rules could apply is beside the point, and was a derailing stipulation of a previous post. The point is there is a ton of things Fighters can do other than "basic boink", giving battlemaster maneuvers to all martials will not significantly increase their "options" in combat because the only battlemaster maneuvers worth using are Ripost (just an extra basic boink) or Commander's Strike (telling your rogue to make a basic boink instead). All other maneuvers either : have a very high chance of failure, just do stuff that is already an option for martial via special combat actions in the DMG or via weapon masteries, or are non-combat features.
Though IMO it is all sort of pointless because martial players don't need (and I would argue many don't want) to impose conditions on the enemy. They want to kill them. The only features martials need are those that increase their damage numbers so they kill stuff better. Maneuvers be darned! Give me 1d10 extra damage once per turn and I'll take that every time over having battlemaster maneuvers, it's why every martial character I've made in the "Playtest Characters" thread uses a Halberd to maximize the number of basic boinks and thus total damage they deal each turn.
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.
You just admitted that improvised actions that can deal damage are allowed. Fire, falling chandeliers, carts etc. Ergo, basic bonk disproven.
This is getting way off topic now. Whether or not some written rules could apply is beside the point, and was a derailing stipulation of a previous post. The point is there is a ton of things Fighters can do other than "basic boink", giving battlemaster maneuvers to all martials will not significantly increase their "options" in combat because the only battlemaster maneuvers worth using are Ripost (just an extra basic boink) or Commander's Strike (telling your rogue to make a basic boink instead). All other maneuvers either : have a very high chance of failure, just do stuff that is already an option for martial via special combat actions in the DMG or via weapon masteries, or are non-combat features.
Though IMO it is all sort of pointless because martial players don't need (and I would argue many don't want) to impose conditions on the enemy. They want to kill them. The only features martials need are those that increase their damage numbers so they kill stuff better. Maneuvers be darned! Give me 1d10 extra damage once per turn and I'll take that every time over having battlemaster maneuvers, it's why every martial character I've made in the "Playtest Characters" thread uses a Halberd to maximize the number of basic boinks and thus total damage they deal each turn.
No, the point is the most fighters don’t have any bonks other than the basic bonk, but you don’t care because you are happy with the basic bonk. Which is 100% fine. Just say that and not all the other crap about options that aren’t Bonk options. Now clearly you opinion about Martial characters not wanting to impose conditions is clearly in contradiction with Kamchatmonk’s post that this evolved from. They want more than the basic Bonk. I’m of the opinion of why not. If it’s optional, why not. Those that want to basic bonk can basic bonk and those that want to condition bonk can condition bonk, but everyone gets to bonk.
Just say that and not all the other crap about options that aren’t Bonk options.
We're allowed to point out that you and/or your DMs are ignoring text in the rulebook, whether willfully or inadvertently.
Again Mr Right jumps in without reading, being wrong as ever. Nothing in the rules allows for an alternative to basic bonk, so if your class or subclass doesn’t offer one you are stuck with basic bonk for bonking. We know you don’t have to bonk. If I want I can use my turn to sing lullaby, but that’s not gonna bonk.
Again Mr Right jumps in without reading, being wrong as ever. Nothing in the rules allows for an alternative to basic bonk, so if your class or subclass doesn’t offer one you are stuck with basic bonk for bonking. We know you don’t have to bonk. If I want I can use my turn to sing lullaby, but that’s not gonna bonk.
Does your PHB stop at page 192? You might want to repurchase it if so.
Again Mr Right jumps in without reading, being wrong as ever. Nothing in the rules allows for an alternative to basic bonk, so if your class or subclass doesn’t offer one you are stuck with basic bonk for bonking. We know you don’t have to bonk. If I want I can use my turn to sing lullaby, but that’s not gonna bonk.
Does your PHB stop at page 192? You might want to repurchase it if so.
Was that supposed to be a Jab? Lol. I’m sorry I’ve read the core books, and even though I don’t remember all the rules I remember many. I’m also sorry with the internet and DNDbeyond it’s really easy to look up rules. Actually I’m not sorry. It’s really awesome. Lmao
All this discussion shows the importance of defined scopes.
Improvised options (bonk alternatives) are still dm dependent and are not dependable. They are a nessecity because the rules will never cover every thing but need to be reduced to a manageable level.
One of the things about phb ranger was the context(a loose scope) for tracking check. By having the feature say they get exact numbers and sizes and time frames we got an implication that others doing the same skill wouldn't. Dms that choose to allow non rangers to get all that are being generous at best and undermining it at worst.
Improvised attacks and conditions kind of do the same. A scope to function is good but it should never undermine a feature or other gameplay mechanic.
It seems Ranger is so complete that this thread is now about Fighter rather than Ranger.
I mean, Rangers can use improvised actions and contests too. There, it's about Ranger again! :D
Uhh.. yup. So can everyone else. And when would it ever be a good idea to use any one of these improvised actions and contests over your attack action? I think my glaive does more damage than some boiling soup, to be honest, and as for swinging from a chandelier if anything it means you can’t jump as far on your turn or are wasting a turn to change direction. Why would I ever use these improvised actions and contests? All the ones that aren’t munchkin mother may I frankly are worse than my attack action and the ones that are are unlikely to be allowed - or they might be once. But throwing sand in someone’s eye and blinding them over and over turn after turn with your free object interaction sounds extremely dodgy. You’re effectively abusing rule of cool.
It seems Ranger is so complete that this thread is now about Fighter rather than Ranger.
Sadly, Ranger is technically complete. At least for play testing. And the survey says over 50% of the folks on here agree that WotC has done enough and gathered enough info to make 5eR Ranger as good as they expect.
I think my glaive does more damage than some boiling soup, to be honest, and as for swinging from a chandelier if anything it means you can’t jump as far on your turn or are wasting a turn to change direction. Why would I ever use these improvised actions and contests?
I still hope that the 2024 Ranger will be cool. And, like most of my hopes, I fully expect to have that hope be crushed and mangled by the disappointment that is reality.
BUT... that just opens the door for me to support the more creative & independent 3rd party publishers, when they inevitably come up with something way better.
I think my glaive does more damage than some boiling soup, to be honest, and as for swinging from a chandelier if anything it means you can’t jump as far on your turn or are wasting a turn to change direction. Why would I ever use these improvised actions and contests?
You’re missing my point. Basic bonk wouldn’t get used all the time to the exclusion of everything else if it wasn’t the best option available. Why would I waste my action doing something just because it looks cool? You’ve also ignored the last part of my post, which is how easily annoying ruling by flavour could become. You’ve said ‘for starters’, and not given reasons. Next time you ignore my reasoning at least give some of your own.
Disparaging players for having no imagination also doesn’t help (which isn’t referring to you). Plus, there’s no ‘rule of cool’ actions that a martial can do better than a caster for reasons other than differing stat spreads, which really aren’t that hard to get around. Saying ‘use your improvised actions, stop complaining’ doesn’t help when a caster has a huge variety of options on their turn and the martial has.. basic bonk or DM fiat.
This is getting way off topic now. Whether or not some written rules could apply is beside the point, and was a derailing stipulation of a previous post. The point is there is a ton of things Fighters can do other than "basic boink"
No there isn't.
, giving battlemaster maneuvers to all martials will not significantly increase their "options" in combat because the only battlemaster maneuvers worth using are Ripost (just an extra basic boink) or Commander's Strike (telling your rogue to make a basic boink instead). All other maneuvers either : have a very high chance of failure, just do stuff that is already an option for martial via special combat actions in the DMG or via weapon masteries, or are non-combat features.
...have you played a battlemaster? There's a reason people have wanted Wizards/DDB to publish the old Maneuver-focused Revised Ranger they introduced as an example of class homebrew for most of a decade. Maneuvers offer a fantastic diversity of options. Do some of them have a chance of failure? Sure. So do most spells. A well-honed set of maneuvers allows a battlemaster excellent flexibility in combat and lets the player use their maneuver choices to show off a signature combat style for their character. Does your battlemaster specialize in movement options like Pushing and Maneuvering Attack? Do they specialize in morale-affecting options like Goading or Menacing Attack? Something else? The system is tremendous fun and it's absolutely criminal that it's restricted solely to one subclass of one class, especially when it's such a natural, perfect fit for "The Expert" martial class i.e. Ranger.
Though IMO it is all sort of pointless because martial players don't need (and I would argue many don't want) to impose conditions on the enemy. They want to kill them. The only features martials need are those that increase their damage numbers so they kill stuff better. Maneuvers be darned! Give me 1d10 extra damage once per turn and I'll take that every time over having battlemaster maneuvers, it's why every martial character I've made in the "Playtest Characters" thread uses a Halberd to maximize the number of basic boinks and thus total damage they deal each turn.
What an incredibly boring way to play D&D. If that's all you want then I guess Champion Fighter exists, but the Ranger is an Expert class. It's supposed to be about using skill, training and talent to overcome situations, not just hacking at them with a saw. If literally the only possible thing you value is raw damage, then yeah. There's gonna be a LOT of stuff you don't care about. The vast majority of the game, in fact. I can attest that when I play martial characters I greatly enjoy options to "impose conditions" on my enemy, i.e. push them around, knock them down, reduce their ability to fight back. Because while "dead" is the most powerful status effect, it's also the one that takes the longest time and the most work to inflict. Lesser conditions, imposed more quickly along the way, can end up saving the day sometimes, as well as giving the Bonker ways to play into the terrain or specific non-bonk objectives.
After all, how's your halberd guy at capturing an enemy alive for interrogation once you throw out the game's dogshit moose garbage "nonlethal attacks" rules and make characters actually work for that shit? How good is your halberd guy at fighting in difficult or complex terrain, or tight quarters? How good's your halberd guy designed and equipped for absolutely bug**** nothing except dealing basic damage gonna do when dealing basic damage isn't the objective, or at least the sole objective?
You’re missing my point. Basic bonk wouldn’t get used all the time to the exclusion of everything else if it wasn’t the best option available. Why would I waste my action doing something just because it looks cool?
This is still a tautology. It's the best option at your table because nothing else is being allowed to do anything useful, followed by you asserting that nothing else is useful at your table. When your DM can simply choose to not do that, as the books explicitly encourage them to do.
You’ve also ignored the last part of my post, which is how easily annoying ruling by flavour could become.
What you personally find annoying is neither my problem nor WotC's to solve. Their job is to provide a framework for performing unlisted actions in combat, which they did.
Disparaging players for having no imagination also doesn’t help (which isn’t referring to you). Plus, there’s no ‘rule of cool’ actions that a martial can do better than a caster for reasons other than differing stat spreads, which really aren’t that hard to get around. Saying ‘use your improvised actions, stop complaining’ doesn’t help when a caster has a huge variety of options on their turn and the martial has.. basic bonk or DM fiat.
I'm not telling you not to complain; I'm telling you where your complaints should be directed for maximum effectiveness, i.e. your DM. They are the one leaving the tools the designers gave them on the table and relegating you to basic bonk.
In addition, the entire point per Crawford is that not every class is supposed to have the same array of buttons to press. Even among veteran players, not everyone wants to play a caster in every single campaign, never mind newer players.
You’re missing my point. Basic bonk wouldn’t get used all the time to the exclusion of everything else if it wasn’t the best option available. Why would I waste my action doing something just because it looks cool?
This is still a tautology. It's the best option at your table because nothing else is being allowed to do anything useful, followed by you asserting that nothing else is useful at your table. When your DM can simply choose to not do that, as the books explicitly encourage them to do.
You’ve also ignored the last part of my post, which is how easily annoying ruling by flavour could become.
What you personally find annoying is neither my problem nor WotC's to solve. Their job is to provide a framework for performing unlisted actions in combat, which they did.
Disparaging players for having no imagination also doesn’t help (which isn’t referring to you). Plus, there’s no ‘rule of cool’ actions that a martial can do better than a caster for reasons other than differing stat spreads, which really aren’t that hard to get around. Saying ‘use your improvised actions, stop complaining’ doesn’t help when a caster has a huge variety of options on their turn and the martial has.. basic bonk or DM fiat.
I'm not telling you not to complain; I'm telling you where your complaints should be directed for maximum effectiveness, i.e. your DM. They are the one leaving the tools the designers gave them on the table and relegating you to basic bonk.
In addition, the entire point per Crawford is that not every class is supposed to have the same array of buttons to press. Even among veteran players, not everyone wants to play a caster in every single campaign, never mind newer players.
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?
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.
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 think my glaive does more damage than some boiling soup, to be honest, and as for swinging from a chandelier if anything it means you can’t jump as far on your turn or are wasting a turn to change direction. Why would I ever use these improvised actions and contests?
You’re missing my point. Basic bonk wouldn’t get used all the time to the exclusion of everything else if it wasn’t the best option available.
...Why would I waste my action doing something just because it looks cool?
You’ve also ignored the last part of my post, which is how easily annoying ruling by flavour could become. You’ve said ‘for starters’, and not given reasons. Next time you ignore my reasoning at least give some of your own.
Disparaging players for having no imagination also doesn’t help (which isn’t referring to you). Plus, there’s no ‘rule of cool’ actions that a martial can do better than a caster for reasons other than differing stat spreads, which really aren’t that hard to get around. Saying ‘use your improvised actions, stop complaining’ doesn’t help when a caster has a huge variety of options on their turn and the martial has.. basic bonk or DM fiat.
taken out of context, this table sounds exhausting. :)
You’re missing my point. Basic bonk wouldn’t get used all the time to the exclusion of everything else if it wasn’t the best option available. Why would I waste my action doing something just because it looks cool?
This is still a tautology. It's the best option at your table because nothing else is being allowed to do anything useful, followed by you asserting that nothing else is useful at your table. When your DM can simply choose to not do that, as the books explicitly encourage them to do.
You’ve also ignored the last part of my post, which is how easily annoying ruling by flavour could become.
What you personally find annoying is neither my problem nor WotC's to solve. Their job is to provide a framework for performing unlisted actions in combat, which they did.
Disparaging players for having no imagination also doesn’t help (which isn’t referring to you). Plus, there’s no ‘rule of cool’ actions that a martial can do better than a caster for reasons other than differing stat spreads, which really aren’t that hard to get around. Saying ‘use your improvised actions, stop complaining’ doesn’t help when a caster has a huge variety of options on their turn and the martial has.. basic bonk or DM fiat.
I'm not telling you not to complain; I'm telling you where your complaints should be directed for maximum effectiveness, i.e. your DM. They are the one leaving the tools the designers gave them on the table and relegating you to basic bonk.
In addition, the entire point per Crawford is that not every class is supposed to have the same array of buttons to press. Even among veteran players, not everyone wants to play a caster in every single campaign, never mind newer players.
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?
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.
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’.
Edited for clarity.
the suggestion that one improvisational action leads to a cascade of improv acts that increase the dm's load is ...not wrong? a dm might really burn out if they have to do a bunch of unanticipated research on the spot. yes, i've seen that. but are we sure that's not a slippery slope fallacy? as much as i want to make all the dms of the world feel comfortable, it seems more like a personal anxiety and local table patience issue. certainly more likely the issue than not enough bold word entries under the Attack Actions section of the book.
as for more buttons for martials to press... like what? like aim for something's eye or take a return blow on your armor so you reduce the damage? that's a good roll of damage dice and a description of what high AC is doing. i've been following this thread since it started, but somehow i can't actually wrap my head around what's currently being requested. the game isn't balanced in a way so that martials can compete with the power and versatility of spellcasting? that's right, yes.
edit: before it's assumed differently i'd like to say that i personally enjoy inflicting conditions on enemies. shove, dash, and grapple are all tools i've used happily... although, honestly they're more often tools for helping other less-optimal new party members feel relevant. low-threat fights can be very refreshing when you spot them. sometimes it's fun to feel strong and flex a bit. a break from the weight of high efficiency and skin-of-the-teeth survival narrowing my options.
This is getting way off topic now. Whether or not some written rules could apply is beside the point, and was a derailing stipulation of a previous post. The point is there is a ton of things Fighters can do other than "basic boink", giving battlemaster maneuvers to all martials will not significantly increase their "options" in combat because the only battlemaster maneuvers worth using are Ripost (just an extra basic boink) or Commander's Strike (telling your rogue to make a basic boink instead). All other maneuvers either : have a very high chance of failure, just do stuff that is already an option for martial via special combat actions in the DMG or via weapon masteries, or are non-combat features.
Though IMO it is all sort of pointless because martial players don't need (and I would argue many don't want) to impose conditions on the enemy. They want to kill them. The only features martials need are those that increase their damage numbers so they kill stuff better. Maneuvers be darned! Give me 1d10 extra damage once per turn and I'll take that every time over having battlemaster maneuvers, it's why every martial character I've made in the "Playtest Characters" thread uses a Halberd to maximize the number of basic boinks and thus total damage they deal each turn.
Defending your position is your job, not mine.
You just admitted that improvised actions that can deal damage are allowed. Fire, falling chandeliers, carts etc. Ergo, basic bonk disproven.
No, the point is the most fighters don’t have any bonks other than the basic bonk, but you don’t care because you are happy with the basic bonk. Which is 100% fine. Just say that and not all the other crap about options that aren’t Bonk options. Now clearly you opinion about Martial characters not wanting to impose conditions is clearly in contradiction with Kamchatmonk’s post that this evolved from. They want more than the basic Bonk. I’m of the opinion of why not. If it’s optional, why not. Those that want to basic bonk can basic bonk and those that want to condition bonk can condition bonk, but everyone gets to bonk.
We're allowed to point out that you and/or your DMs are ignoring text in the rulebook, whether willfully or inadvertently.
Rangers and Wizards are my favorite classes in 5e, so all the improvements made are very welcome.
So... Thanks JC and the rest of the team involved!
Again Mr Right jumps in without reading, being wrong as ever. Nothing in the rules allows for an alternative to basic bonk, so if your class or subclass doesn’t offer one you are stuck with basic bonk for bonking. We know you don’t have to bonk. If I want I can use my turn to sing lullaby, but that’s not gonna bonk.
Does your PHB stop at page 192? You might want to repurchase it if so.
Was that supposed to be a Jab? Lol. I’m sorry I’ve read the core books, and even though I don’t remember all the rules I remember many. I’m also sorry with the internet and DNDbeyond it’s really easy to look up rules. Actually I’m not sorry. It’s really awesome. Lmao
All this discussion shows the importance of defined scopes.
Improvised options (bonk alternatives) are still dm dependent and are not dependable. They are a nessecity because the rules will never cover every thing but need to be reduced to a manageable level.
One of the things about phb ranger was the context(a loose scope) for tracking check. By having the feature say they get exact numbers and sizes and time frames we got an implication that others doing the same skill wouldn't. Dms that choose to allow non rangers to get all that are being generous at best and undermining it at worst.
Improvised attacks and conditions kind of do the same. A scope to function is good but it should never undermine a feature or other gameplay mechanic.
It seems Ranger is so complete that this thread is now about Fighter rather than Ranger.
DnDBeyond has the two sidebars from the PHB too.
I mean, Rangers can use improvised actions and contests too. There, it's about Ranger again! :D
Uhh.. yup. So can everyone else. And when would it ever be a good idea to use any one of these improvised actions and contests over your attack action? I think my glaive does more damage than some boiling soup, to be honest, and as for swinging from a chandelier if anything it means you can’t jump as far on your turn or are wasting a turn to change direction. Why would I ever use these improvised actions and contests? All the ones that aren’t munchkin mother may I frankly are worse than my attack action and the ones that are are unlikely to be allowed - or they might be once. But throwing sand in someone’s eye and blinding them over and over turn after turn with your free object interaction sounds extremely dodgy. You’re effectively abusing rule of cool.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
Sadly, Ranger is technically complete. At least for play testing. And the survey says over 50% of the folks on here agree that WotC has done enough and gathered enough info to make 5eR Ranger as good as they expect.
...When you're looking to do something other than basic bonk, for starters. You know, the thing that kicked off this entire tangent to begin with?
Why yes, if your GM or even you decide that all your improvised actions will be useless, then... they will be useless. The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.
I still hope that the 2024 Ranger will be cool. And, like most of my hopes, I fully expect to have that hope be crushed and mangled by the disappointment that is reality.
BUT... that just opens the door for me to support the more creative & independent 3rd party publishers, when they inevitably come up with something way better.
You’re missing my point. Basic bonk wouldn’t get used all the time to the exclusion of everything else if it wasn’t the best option available. Why would I waste my action doing something just because it looks cool? You’ve also ignored the last part of my post, which is how easily annoying ruling by flavour could become. You’ve said ‘for starters’, and not given reasons. Next time you ignore my reasoning at least give some of your own.
Disparaging players for having no imagination also doesn’t help (which isn’t referring to you). Plus, there’s no ‘rule of cool’ actions that a martial can do better than a caster for reasons other than differing stat spreads, which really aren’t that hard to get around. Saying ‘use your improvised actions, stop complaining’ doesn’t help when a caster has a huge variety of options on their turn and the martial has.. basic bonk or DM fiat.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
No there isn't.
...have you played a battlemaster? There's a reason people have wanted Wizards/DDB to publish the old Maneuver-focused Revised Ranger they introduced as an example of class homebrew for most of a decade. Maneuvers offer a fantastic diversity of options. Do some of them have a chance of failure? Sure. So do most spells. A well-honed set of maneuvers allows a battlemaster excellent flexibility in combat and lets the player use their maneuver choices to show off a signature combat style for their character. Does your battlemaster specialize in movement options like Pushing and Maneuvering Attack? Do they specialize in morale-affecting options like Goading or Menacing Attack? Something else? The system is tremendous fun and it's absolutely criminal that it's restricted solely to one subclass of one class, especially when it's such a natural, perfect fit for "The Expert" martial class i.e. Ranger.
What an incredibly boring way to play D&D. If that's all you want then I guess Champion Fighter exists, but the Ranger is an Expert class. It's supposed to be about using skill, training and talent to overcome situations, not just hacking at them with a saw. If literally the only possible thing you value is raw damage, then yeah. There's gonna be a LOT of stuff you don't care about. The vast majority of the game, in fact. I can attest that when I play martial characters I greatly enjoy options to "impose conditions" on my enemy, i.e. push them around, knock them down, reduce their ability to fight back. Because while "dead" is the most powerful status effect, it's also the one that takes the longest time and the most work to inflict. Lesser conditions, imposed more quickly along the way, can end up saving the day sometimes, as well as giving the Bonker ways to play into the terrain or specific non-bonk objectives.
After all, how's your halberd guy at capturing an enemy alive for interrogation once you throw out the game's dogshit moose garbage "nonlethal attacks" rules and make characters actually work for that shit? How good is your halberd guy at fighting in difficult or complex terrain, or tight quarters? How good's your halberd guy designed and equipped for absolutely bug**** nothing except dealing basic damage gonna do when dealing basic damage isn't the objective, or at least the sole objective?
Please do not contact or message me.
This is still a tautology. It's the best option at your table because nothing else is being allowed to do anything useful, followed by you asserting that nothing else is useful at your table. When your DM can simply choose to not do that, as the books explicitly encourage them to do.
What you personally find annoying is neither my problem nor WotC's to solve. Their job is to provide a framework for performing unlisted actions in combat, which they did.
I'm not telling you not to complain; I'm telling you where your complaints should be directed for maximum effectiveness, i.e. your DM. They are the one leaving the tools the designers gave them on the table and relegating you to basic bonk.
In addition, the entire point per Crawford is that not every class is supposed to have the same array of buttons to press. Even among veteran players, not everyone wants to play a caster in every single campaign, never mind newer players.
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?
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.
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’.
Edited for clarity.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
taken out of context, this table sounds exhausting. :)
the suggestion that one improvisational action leads to a cascade of improv acts that increase the dm's load is ...not wrong? a dm might really burn out if they have to do a bunch of unanticipated research on the spot. yes, i've seen that. but are we sure that's not a slippery slope fallacy? as much as i want to make all the dms of the world feel comfortable, it seems more like a personal anxiety and local table patience issue. certainly more likely the issue than not enough bold word entries under the Attack Actions section of the book.
as for more buttons for martials to press... like what? like aim for something's eye or take a return blow on your armor so you reduce the damage? that's a good roll of damage dice and a description of what high AC is doing. i've been following this thread since it started, but somehow i can't actually wrap my head around what's currently being requested. the game isn't balanced in a way so that martials can compete with the power and versatility of spellcasting? that's right, yes.
edit: before it's assumed differently i'd like to say that i personally enjoy inflicting conditions on enemies. shove, dash, and grapple are all tools i've used happily... although, honestly they're more often tools for helping other less-optimal new party members feel relevant. low-threat fights can be very refreshing when you spot them. sometimes it's fun to feel strong and flex a bit. a break from the weight of high efficiency and skin-of-the-teeth survival narrowing my options.
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!