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.)
The issue there is that most subclasses aren't allowed to change how the base class plays, or have any sort of real, actual impact on the way the character plays. Rune Knight doesn't change a single goddamn thing fighter does. Much as I love the vibe/aesthetic/idea behind the Horizon Walker, a Horizon Walker ranger plays 100% identically to every other ranger except Beastmaster, and even Beastmaster is only "different" in that you have an extra body to pilot. A very large majority of subclasses have so little impact on how the base class operates that it's honestly a wonder why they even exist. A great example is Thief rogue, which outside of its one sketchy gimmick (i.e. 'Use An Object' as a bonus action) may as well not have any subclass features at all. Same for Hunter rangers, which are basically no-subclass rangers. So if the base class is dramatically oversimplified to keep the floor as low as possible, subclasses can't fix that. Feats can't fix that. None of those things are allowed to be strong/impactful enough to truly change the identity of the core kit.
And if EVERY class is dramatically oversimplified so as to keep the floor low for people who can't be assed to learn the rules of the game...
The issue there is that most subclasses aren't allowed to change how the base class plays, or have any sort of real, actual impact on the way the character plays. Rune Knight doesn't change a single goddamn thing fighter does. Much as I love the vibe/aesthetic/idea behind the Horizon Walker, a Horizon Walker ranger plays 100% identically to every other ranger except Beastmaster, and even Beastmaster is only "different" in that you have an extra body to pilot. A very large majority of subclasses have so little impact on how the base class operates that it's honestly a wonder why they even exist. A great example is Thief rogue, which outside of its one sketchy gimmick (i.e. 'Use An Object' as a bonus action) may as well not have any subclass features at all. Same for Hunter rangers, which are basically no-subclass rangers. So if the base class is dramatically oversimplified to keep the floor as low as possible, subclasses can't fix that. Feats can't fix that. None of those things are allowed to be strong/impactful enough to truly change the identity of the core kit.
And if EVERY class is dramatically oversimplified so as to keep the floor low for people who can't be assed to learn the rules of the game...
On Rune Knight, I strongly disagree - becoming Huge, redirecting enemy crits, wide area denial, and debuffing enemy saves all without spells are tactics no other fighter can really do. Those things let you have a substantial impact on the Fighter's base play, and notably differentiate the RK from other Fighter subclasses.
Where I do agree with you is that subclasses like Thief, Hunter, and Horizon Walker from earlier in 5e's lifespan need a lot of work. (Larian for example adjusted Thief to get two bonus actions per round, which is a pretty substantial playstyle shift, especially with how their items worked. Much too strong for 5e, but it was an interesting change.) But I've never been against buffing underperforming subclasses; that's irrelevant to the topic of what a given base class floor should be.
I also agree that not every base class should have a simple floor. Artificer and Druid for instance have quite high floors, and that's reflected in their play statistics, but I still enjoy both considerably. What I'm saying is that floor disparity is not inherently bad - classes like Fighter and Barbarian having lower floors than Artificer and Druid is healthy for the game.
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.
Sure, I've seen players take and use other options but everyone of them has felt dissatisfied with their character because the other maneuvers just.. aren't very powerful. Riposte gets you a whole extra attack you would not have had otherwise which has an average 65% chance to hit, without costing you any actions on your turn allowing it to combo with PAM, GWM, and any other BA you might have, because it is an extra attack it scales with magic weapons as you level up and benefits from any source of Adv you have, plus you can always make it a power attack if you're using 5e feats meaning it has potential for a massive amount of damage.
Vs... a couple maneuvers give Adv on one attack and increase the damage by 1d8 or 1d10, or most of the maneuvers that require a saving throw that the enemy will make at least 50% of the time (more for those that use STR or CON saves) unless you use it on a minion rather than the BBEG....
Before I started DMing I thought Battlemaster was amazing, but having seen it in play... it's just lackluster. Goading Attack sounds cool for a frontliner protecting their allies, but most of the time the enemy was going to attack you anyway b/c you're right there and it would have to take an AoO to try to move to someone else. Disarming attack sounds awesome until you'll looking at the monster statblocks and realize almost every enemy is equally effective without weapons as it is with them, and the vast majority can't be disarmed. Feinting attack sounds awesome until you see the EK getting Adv on their first attack for free from their familiar. etc... etc...
The core problem - and this has come up every time this subject arises - is that there is currently no "high ceiling" martial option. ALL fighters are Boring Basic Bonk. ALL barbarians are Boring Basic Bonk. Ranger and Paladin are "interesting" only inasmuch as they piggyback on spellcasting's inherently more tactical nature; their martial combat engines are just as Boring Basic Bonk as fighters and barbarians.
Rogues were the most Boring Basic Bonk until they introduced Cunning Strike, which is sortakinna exactly what players who are in favor of wider access to Superiority systems are looking for - meaningful, give-and-take trades for every round of combat, without the stupidity of saying 'you can trade out your entire Attack Action to...I'unno, maybe push somebody a little bit?' And so because rogues actually got something splendid and cool, The Playerbase rose up in frothing nerdrage and screamed it down the way they have every other ******* cool thing that came out in One D&D so far, so bleh. Guess I'll just implement Cunning Strike as a rogue-only feat or something.
Nevertheless. There is no option for players that are looking to play a martial character with a high level of tactical engagement and interesting round-by-round decision-making. if you want to make interesting decisions in every round of combat and actually be engaged with the fight, you are required to play a spellcaster. Full stop. Why does that need to be the case, the way Boring Basic Bonk people keep insisting?
Where I do agree with you is that subclasses like Thief, Hunter, and Horizon Walker from earlier in 5e's lifespan need a lot of work. (Larian for example adjusted Thief to get two bonus actions per round, which is a pretty substantial playstyle shift, especially with how their items worked. Much too strong for 5e, but it was an interesting change.) But I've never been against buffing underperforming subclasses; that's irrelevant to the topic of what a given base class floor should be.
Rogue & Ranger both have the problem that most of their cool subclass features are really late game (level 11+). Rogue at least usually gets something cool at level 3 but then are waiting until level 9 for their next feature and often that one is an RP-ribbon feature, A ton of Ranger subclasses get very bland 3rd level features which is definitely a problem. I wish more classes/subclasses were designed like Barbarian, Bard, and Monk where the main class gives you a core resource and each subclass significantly changes what that resource can do - this is why the Cunning Strikes on Rogue are well designed.
meaningful, give-and-take trades for every round of combat.
That's what they did with Weapon Masteries, - though they should have just given everyone mastery in all weapons they are proficient in so it is easier to swap around to make those meaningful trades.
Weapon Masteries are a lame joke. Most of them are just straight buffs to your weapon attack, things you do every time you swing because why wouldn't you? There's no tactical decision-making, no give and take, no engagement with the battle - you just push your Mastery button, get your treat, and move on. The system is a huge disappointment and largely pointless, it does not accomplish one single objective Crawford claims it accomplishes.
Weapon Masteries are a lame joke. Most of them are just straight buffs to your weapon attack, things you do every time you swing because why wouldn't you? There's no tactical decision-making, no give and take, no engagement with the battle - you just push your Mastery button, get your treat, and move on. The system is a huge disappointment and largely pointless, it does not accomplish one single objective Crawford claims it accomplishes.
But which one do you use? You can swap between attacks which weapon you are using and thus which mastery property you use, and now they they've gotten rid of Flex, each one has a different situtation where it is the best choice. The main problem with the system is they were way too restrictive on the number of weapons you can have mastery in at a time (I'll be HBing that away for sure). But Fighters and Warlocks can swap on the fly from Pushing an enemy into an AOE, or knocking them prone, or getting advantage on their next attack (that's like 3 of the Battlemaster maneuvers you claim would fix everything about martials).
Only because you refuse to use your imagination or creativity for even a second. 90% of D&D is not written on your character sheet. If all you do is parrot stuff that is written on your character sheet then of course your game is going to feel boring and lame.
The buttons your subclass gives you to press are NOT the only options your character has round-to-round. The sooner you and your DM come to grips with that the better off your games will be.
Both these points strongly remind me of procedurally generated game design where the developers expect the players to come up with ways to entertain themselves somehow. Look, I want to have things to do in combat, I want it to be effective and reliable (in that I wouldn't have to argue with a DM whether I could or could not do that because the DM might be RAW to the bone), and I don't want to dig through the entire DMG to find that one optional rule with a half-baked mechanic that allows me to do the thing that I want to do.
The core problem - and this has come up every time this subject arises - is that there is currently no "high ceiling" martial option. ALL fighters are Boring Basic Bonk. ALL barbarians are Boring Basic Bonk. Ranger and Paladin are "interesting" only inasmuch as they piggyback on spellcasting's inherently more tactical nature; their martial combat engines are just as Boring Basic Bonk as fighters and barbarians.
Rogues were the most Boring Basic Bonk until they introduced Cunning Strike, which is sortakinna exactly what players who are in favor of wider access to Superiority systems are looking for - meaningful, give-and-take trades for every round of combat, without the stupidity of saying 'you can trade out your entire Attack Action to...I'unno, maybe push somebody a little bit?' And so because rogues actually got something splendid and cool, The Playerbase rose up in frothing nerdrage and screamed it down the way they have every other ******* cool thing that came out in One D&D so far, so bleh. Guess I'll just implement Cunning Strike as a rogue-only feat or something.
Nevertheless. There is no option for players that are looking to play a martial character with a high level of tactical engagement and interesting round-by-round decision-making. if you want to make interesting decisions in every round of combat and actually be engaged with the fight, you are required to play a spellcaster. Full stop. Why does that need to be the case, the way Boring Basic Bonk people keep insisting?
Well for starters, Cunning Strike didn't get "screamed down" - quite the opposite in fact, it got 94% approval per the UA8 intro video 🙂 It's definitely making it into 2024, possibly even unchanged from UA6.
But to reiterate my earlier point, Crawford caveated in both of the UA6 videos that Rogue's large combat progression deadzone is what allowed them to design something like CS for it in the first place. Or, to quote his exact words:
UA6 Overview:"We have found that by returning to the 2014 level progression, we've not only been able to ensure cleaner compatibility with subclasses that are already in print, it's also opened up space for us to do some exciting new design...{doing that} opened up space in the Rogue's class table for us to create a brand new feature for the whole class called Cunning Strike."
UA6 Detail: "The thing I'm most excited about, that is the result of us restoring the 2014 class progressions, is we reopened sort of a gap in the 2014 Rogue's level progression between its subclass levels... and it had sort of had this kind of 'dry spell' in between - and that ended up being super-fertile ground for us as we've been refining to the Rogue to create a new feature called Cunning Strike."
Base Fighter hasn't gotten a similar feature because it doesn't have that same "dry spell" problem; its own biggest gap between subclass features is not only shorter than Rogue's, it also gets a bonus feat, a third attack, and Studied Attacks during that window.(Barbarian does have a problem here though, I totally agree - Relentless Rage and Persistent Rage aren't enough texture on their own, and I said as much in my survey.)
Both these points strongly remind me of procedurally generated game design where the developers expect the players to come up with ways to entertain themselves somehow. Look, I want to have things to do in combat, I want it to be effective and reliable (in that I wouldn't have to argue with a DM whether I could or could not do that because the DM might be RAW to the bone), and I don't want to dig through the entire DMG to find that one optional rule with a half-baked mechanic that allows me to do the thing that I want to do.
It's in the PHB actually. Also Basic. Expecting players to read that is.... reasonable.
Weapon Masteries are a lame joke. Most of them are just straight buffs to your weapon attack, things you do every time you swing because why wouldn't you? There's no tactical decision-making, no give and take, no engagement with the battle - you just push your Mastery button, get your treat, and move on. The system is a huge disappointment and largely pointless, it does not accomplish one single objective Crawford claims it accomplishes.
But which one do you use? You can swap between attacks which weapon you are using and thus which mastery property you use, and now they they've gotten rid of Flex, each one has a different situtation where it is the best choice. The main problem with the system is they were way too restrictive on the number of weapons you can have mastery in at a time (I'll be HBing that away for sure). But Fighters and Warlocks can swap on the fly from Pushing an enemy into an AOE, or knocking them prone, or getting advantage on their next attack (that's like 3 of the Battlemaster maneuvers you claim would fix everything about martials).
I wonder if I can convince my DM to let me flavor a greataxe or halberd as pollaxe? Part axe, part hammer, part spear, which weapon mastery do I use this attack? Pair with Battlemaster for moar options every round.
Well for starters, Cunning Strike didn't get "screamed down" - quite the opposite in fact, it got 94% approval per the UA8 intro video 🙂 It's definitely making it into 2024, possibly even unchanged from UA6.
Mm-hm.
What this One D&D UA test cycle has taught me?
It doesn't matter how well something tests. It doesn't matter what J-Craw says. It doesn't matter what would clearly and obviously make for a better, stronger, more solidly designed game. None of that matters. This horrible "community" will scream and rage and cry and kvetch and riot and pitch an unholy ****in' Internet-wide tantrum until literally bum**** everything is exactly and perfectly identical to the 2014 release, just with variant covers, new art, and maybe some cleaned-up phrasing here and there. Remember - this is the same "community" that waged a months-long war against the idea of changing the word "race" to something else. A war that STILL flares up from time to time.
Wizards tried to make a car. The "Community" threw a worldwide hissyfit demanding faster horses instead.
No, I don't trust that Cunning Strike will make it into the 2024 books, because everything else worth putting in them has already been removed. Why would Cunning Strike be any different? Doesn't matter how well it tested. The Internet ragemonsters that have determined that anything "New", no matter what it might be, is automatically The Worst Thing Since [Godwin's Law] will have their way. And they'll drag the rest of us into Asmodeus' pits right alongside them no matter what anyone says or does.
Well for starters, Cunning Strike didn't get "screamed down" - quite the opposite in fact, it got 94% approval per the UA8 intro video 🙂 It's definitely making it into 2024, possibly even unchanged from UA6.
But to reiterate my earlier point, Crawford caveated in both of the UA6 videos that Rogue's large combat progression deadzone is what allowed them to design something like CS for it in the first place. Or, to quote his exact words:
UA6 Overview:"We have found that by returning to the 2014 level progression, we've not only been able to ensure cleaner compatibility with subclasses that are already in print, it's also opened up space for us to do some exciting new design...{doing that} opened up space in the Rogue's class table for us to create a brand new feature for the whole class called Cunning Strike."
UA6 Detail: "The thing I'm most excited about, that is the result of us restoring the 2014 class progressions, is we reopened sort of a gap in the 2014 Rogue's level progression between its subclass levels... and it had sort of had this kind of 'dry spell' in between - and that ended up being super-fertile ground for us as we've been refining to the Rogue to create a new feature called Cunning Strike."
Base Fighter hasn't gotten a similar feature because it doesn't have that same "dry spell" problem; its own biggest gap between subclass features is not only shorter than Rogue's, it also gets a bonus feat, a third attack, and Studied Attacks during that window.(Barbarian does have a problem here though, I totally agree - Relentless Rage and Persistent Rage aren't enough texture on their own, and I said as much in my survey.)
Putting two features one the same level? Impossible! Meanwhile WotC to casters: here you go, have a dozen of spells to choose from every other level, and class features, and subclass features, too.
It's in the PHB actually. Also Basic. Expecting players to read that is.... reasonable.
Use an object? Use what object? What kind of efficiency and consistency do you offer? What checks does it require? Or saves? When does it work? Disarming, flanking, and trampling rules are in the DMG. Push, grapple, and shove are all damage-less, so usually subpar to attack action. While a battle master can do Bait and Switch or Commander's Strike. How does one improvise that and expect a DM to go along with it? If your answer is "just improvise", what is even the point of all these rules and class mechanics in the PHB? Why do we even have separate spells if we could just improvise magic?
Putting two features one the same level? Impossible! Meanwhile WotC to casters: here you go, have a dozen of spells to choose from every other level, and class features, and subclass features, too.
Monk gets two combat features on the same level (Extra Attack and Stunning Fist.) I don't think it's that simple or they'd have done that.
Well for starters, Cunning Strike didn't get "screamed down" - quite the opposite in fact, it got 94% approval per the UA8 intro video 🙂 It's definitely making it into 2024, possibly even unchanged from UA6.
Mm-hm.
What this One D&D UA test cycle has taught me?
It doesn't matter how well something tests. It doesn't matter what J-Craw says. It doesn't matter what would clearly and obviously make for a better, stronger, more solidly designed game. None of that matters. This horrible "community" will scream and rage and cry and kvetch and riot and pitch an unholy ****in' Internet-wide tantrum until literally bum**** everything is exactly and perfectly identical to the 2014 release, just with variant covers, new art, and maybe some cleaned-up phrasing here and there. Remember - this is the same "community" that waged a months-long war against the idea of changing the word "race" to something else. A war that STILL flares up from time to time.
Wizards tried to make a car. The "Community" threw a worldwide hissyfit demanding faster horses instead.
No, I don't trust that Cunning Strike will make it into the 2024 books, because everything else worth putting in them has already been removed. Why would Cunning Strike be any different? Doesn't matter how well it tested. The Internet ragemonsters that have determined that anything "New", no matter what it might be, is automatically The Worst Thing Since [Godwin's Law] will have their way. And they'll drag the rest of us into Asmodeus' pits right alongside them no matter what anyone says or does.
I see so you are being angry because you enjoy being angry. Because this "argument" is based on nothing at all, as has been pointed out above. So I take it back not even Battlemaster maneuvers will statisfy you, you'll literally never be happy about anything related to the UA because you already decided everything about it sucks. So I'm not sure why you are even still here? If the UA is inevitably going to be terrible, then why are you wasting your time reading it or these forums? Just keep playing 2014 5e, or HB it however you want to play.
I understand why you feel that way and I sympathize. Not all of my own optimism has been burned away by this process, yet.
Y'know? I actually appreciate that. It's the first time anyone's shown anything but scorn for my endless disappointment and frustration with this process. Thank you, Psyren. For what it's worth, apologies for letting that bitterness and frustration slip its leash.
Putting two features one the same level? Impossible! Meanwhile WotC to casters: here you go, have a dozen of spells to choose from every other level, and class features, and subclass features, too.
I really ******* hate this forum's embedded/nested quotes, tried to clean it up but bleh. Anyways.
Thing to remember about the two-features thing is that Wizards has to make the game for stupid people. And I measn stupid people. Not like, regular dumb people. Or even exceptionally dumb people. One of the reasons they try very hard to avoid multiple features on the same level is that they want to sell books to people who are so fundamentally incapable of any form of higher thought that you're left wondering how they haven't managed to poison themselves sucking on something shiny in their day-to-day. Even over and above D&D's traditional issues with non-gamers that don't understand the language and mindset of gaming, this edition keeps being targeted towards people who do not have functioning brains at the explicit expense of people who do. And the **** of it is that Wizards is doing so poorly. They couold be doing so much better to accommodate the dumbs without wrecking shit for the rest of us and they refuse to. it's maddening.
I see so you are being angry because you enjoy being angry. Because this "argument" is based on nothing at all, as has been pointed out above. So I take it back not even Battlemaster maneuvers will statisfy you, you'll literally never be happy about anything related to the UA because you already decided everything about it sucks. So I'm not sure why you are even still here? If the UA is inevitably going to be terrible, then why are you wasting your time reading it or these forums? Just keep playing 2014 5e, or HB it however you want to play.
And we're back to the scorn, and a total lack of reading comprehension to boot.
I'm one of those players who wanted them to blow the edition up, Agilemind. I wanted new shit. Wild, experimental ideas, entirely new and interesting mechanisms and structures informed by the company's years of experience with Fifth Edition. I badly wanted a 5.5e, with really divergent options and a Funky Fresh new feel. Shit like no monster crits/focus on Recharge abilities, universal spell lists, unified Origin rules? That shit was my jam. I loved it.
What we're getting instead? The same goddamn thing we've already had for nine years with the lightest, slightest, most minor and meaningless of cosmetic touch-ups.
Why even bother, if they're not going to change or fix any-goddamn-thing at all?
Y'know? I actually appreciate that. It's the first time anyone's shown anything but scorn for my endless disappointment and frustration with this process. Thank you, Psyren. For what it's worth, apologies for letting that bitterness and frustration slip its leash.
Trust me, I was right there beside you, genuinely excited at the design evolution possibilities behind UA 1-5. Then Crawford released that mealy-mouthed "80% is our acceptance threshold, anything below that is on the chopping block even if it has majority support" and my faith in the process waned drastically.
In retrospect, their treatment of the Ardling should have been a sign - throwing something with at least 60% if not 70% approval straight in the trash with no further iteration was a clear harbinger of what was to come.
Thing to remember about the two-features thing is that Wizards has to make the game for stupid people. And I measn stupid people. Not like, regular dumb people. Or even exceptionally dumb people. One of the reasons they try very hard to avoid multiple features on the same level is that they want to sell books to people who are so fundamentally incapable of any form of higher thought that you're left wondering how they haven't managed to poison themselves sucking on something shiny in their day-to-day. Even over and above D&D's traditional issues with non-gamers that don't understand the language and mindset of gaming, this edition keeps being targeted towards people who do not have functioning brains at the explicit expense of people who do. And the **** of it is that Wizards is doing so poorly. They couold be doing so much better to accommodate the dumbs without wrecking shit for the rest of us and they refuse to. it's maddening.
You don't think Rogues getting Weapon Mastery, Steady Aim, Cunning Strike and their second subclass feature all on top of +8d6 sneak attack per round by 7th level wouldn't have been a bit much offensively?
Well, then. Came expecting Ranger talk. That lasted all of a page and a quarter. I find that rather amusing.
Anyways, actually useful post, since we're all talking about martials - I mentally break them down into a 2x3 categorization. On the one side, you have tanks / meat shields / etc (Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin), on the other you have skirmishers / scouts (Monk, Rogue, Ranger). That's the 2 part.
Here's the 3 part. Fighters and Rogues are part of the Badass Normals trope - its their class fantasy . They don't fancy magic to improve their fighting ability; its all about raw talent and raw skill. This is a great trope, but it has an unfortunate side effect of kind of being the ones everyone else is balanced against since they're so iconic. Which in turn limits what the others get to do.
Barbarians and Monks are ... well, call what they do whatever you want. Ki, life reinforcement, cultivators, spiritualists. They're explicitly magically enhancing their bodies. By all rights, these guys should realistically be able to do almost anything a spell can using their bodies. Flying, punching harder/faster/better, blocking bullets either with a sword (jedi-style) or their chest (superman-style), going Hulk, being the Flash.
Paladins and Rangers are the spell-blades. They rely on mixing spellcasting magic with mundane talent. The Ranger has issues, in that while paladins do well with their smites and auras, the rangers hasn't quite figured out how it wants to do its thing. Personally, I'm all for going all in on better equivalents of bow smites and being magical snipers / skirmisher.
Artificer is kind of an odd one out, in that its crafting focused; right now, Artificer is basically magical blacksmith / alchemist with a side of wandslinger as a stand in for gunslinger. One that focuses on getting different abilities from different disguises / outfits could be fun. Which... honestly, I have a hate/love relationship with Artificer, because this class does the things I want Fighter and Rogue to do. But, as its here to stay, I'd like to see another crafter-based class; maybe one that focuses on different outfits and appearances instead of the blacksmith-alchemist approach of Artificer.
So... am I happy with the final version of any of these classes? Not really. Rogue and Paladin seem to be in a good place, and should be setting the standard for their opposites, the Ranger and Fighter. The Ranger needs its equivalent of smites - they tried with arrow spells, Hunter Marks and things like Zephyr Strike. Good start, but needs more and better. Auras aren't really appropriate, but an... inverted aura? That helps them be stalker-y could be better. Don't just restrict the spell list to being a bad druid rip off. The two are mirrors, one tanky and one scouty. Meanwhile, Fighter? Fighter does need its equivalent of Cunning Strike, but that's more because Weapon Mastery didn't go far enough. Fighter should be pulling off mid-combat Mastery swaps, more powerful Masteries, combining Masteries into a single attack, etc. Maybe even unique Masteries that rely on magic weapons.
The barb/monk need to stop being afraid of being innately MAGICAL. Of being physically faster, stronger, better than anyone else. Monk... is in a bad place overall, but Barbarian honestly isn't much better. Its ironic that the Barbarian is turning into a better scout than the Monk despite the latter's emphasis on Dexterity and Wisdom. And I -do- think the monk should get features that make it scout-like. And either less reliant on its stats, or get more bang for each stat. These guys are supposed to be all about being super strong or super fast. But they don't really FEEL it a lot of the time.
I don't want everyone to have combat maneuvers. It makes sense for the Fighter - being a master of all weapon-use is kind of their thing. And Weapon Mastery is a great vehicle for doing that, if they actually PUSHED it to its logical conclusion. I do, however, think that we should consider having non-Rogues get Extra Attack at 17 and 11. If not the Extra Attack exactly, everyone should have an equivalent, like the Paladin's extra radiance damage. The Barbarian isn't getting anything, the Monk isn't getting anything, the Ranger isn't getting anything. By default anyways - the better subclasses do offer something, but it could be better. Just make it part of the default class.
Fighters should be masters of Weapon Mastery, Rogues get Cunning Strike for variety. Paladins and Rangers should have a variety of smites for their combat variety, even if Ranger calls them different, or has them be different varieties of the Hunter Mark spell. Really lean into the spell sword and arcane archer angles. Honestly, the Arcane Archer subclass should be the bare minimum of what the Ranger should be able to do. Trick arrows (or trick swords, or whatever) should easily be part of the Ranger's spellcasting gig.
Barbarians and monks should be the embodiment of STR/CON and DEX/WIS use. They're all about their bodies being magically perfected beyond human limits. So make us FEEL that. Make more things like Reckless Attack or give different abilities with it. Primal Knowledge is a great utility ability, but it needs more, and to level up as the barbarian does. Level 2 monk gives three ki-uses - make each of them highly attractive to use, and upgrade them as you level. There's no reason that an experienced monk can't Step of the Wind on actual air and just... float there for the hell of it. That should be the level 9 feature, not running on walls. Running on walls should be, like, basic.
You don't think Rogues getting Weapon Mastery, Steady Aim, Cunning Strike and their second subclass feature all on top of +8d6 sneak attack per round by 7th level wouldn't have been a bit much offensively?
Well, Cunning Strike is options, not buffs. And as for weapon masteries, they're gonna mostly use Nick anyway as a dual wielding tax. Which reminds me again that it's not even possible to dual wield rapier with dagger in OneDnD. /facepalm
Well, Cunning Strike is options, not buffs. And as for weapon masteries, they're gonna mostly use Nick anyway as a dual wielding tax. Which reminds me again that it's not even possible to dual wield rapier with dagger in OneDnD. /facepalm
1) If you're dual-wielding you'll have two; Nick only has to be one of them to get the benefit.
2) Options are buffs. Sometimes, a debuff or rider means more damage in the long run even if it costs you some immediate damage in the short term. For example, Blinding an enemy costs you damage, but gives your entire party advantage; it also lets you hit and run most foes without needing to Disengage,. Withdraw also lets you escape foes without Disengaging, and Disarm might let you make an enemy drop e.g. their shield and lower their AC against every ally too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The issue there is that most subclasses aren't allowed to change how the base class plays, or have any sort of real, actual impact on the way the character plays. Rune Knight doesn't change a single goddamn thing fighter does. Much as I love the vibe/aesthetic/idea behind the Horizon Walker, a Horizon Walker ranger plays 100% identically to every other ranger except Beastmaster, and even Beastmaster is only "different" in that you have an extra body to pilot. A very large majority of subclasses have so little impact on how the base class operates that it's honestly a wonder why they even exist. A great example is Thief rogue, which outside of its one sketchy gimmick (i.e. 'Use An Object' as a bonus action) may as well not have any subclass features at all. Same for Hunter rangers, which are basically no-subclass rangers. So if the base class is dramatically oversimplified to keep the floor as low as possible, subclasses can't fix that. Feats can't fix that. None of those things are allowed to be strong/impactful enough to truly change the identity of the core kit.
And if EVERY class is dramatically oversimplified so as to keep the floor low for people who can't be assed to learn the rules of the game...
Please do not contact or message me.
On Rune Knight, I strongly disagree - becoming Huge, redirecting enemy crits, wide area denial, and debuffing enemy saves all without spells are tactics no other fighter can really do. Those things let you have a substantial impact on the Fighter's base play, and notably differentiate the RK from other Fighter subclasses.
Where I do agree with you is that subclasses like Thief, Hunter, and Horizon Walker from earlier in 5e's lifespan need a lot of work. (Larian for example adjusted Thief to get two bonus actions per round, which is a pretty substantial playstyle shift, especially with how their items worked. Much too strong for 5e, but it was an interesting change.) But I've never been against buffing underperforming subclasses; that's irrelevant to the topic of what a given base class floor should be.
I also agree that not every base class should have a simple floor. Artificer and Druid for instance have quite high floors, and that's reflected in their play statistics, but I still enjoy both considerably. What I'm saying is that floor disparity is not inherently bad - classes like Fighter and Barbarian having lower floors than Artificer and Druid is healthy for the game.
Sure, I've seen players take and use other options but everyone of them has felt dissatisfied with their character because the other maneuvers just.. aren't very powerful. Riposte gets you a whole extra attack you would not have had otherwise which has an average 65% chance to hit, without costing you any actions on your turn allowing it to combo with PAM, GWM, and any other BA you might have, because it is an extra attack it scales with magic weapons as you level up and benefits from any source of Adv you have, plus you can always make it a power attack if you're using 5e feats meaning it has potential for a massive amount of damage.
Vs... a couple maneuvers give Adv on one attack and increase the damage by 1d8 or 1d10, or most of the maneuvers that require a saving throw that the enemy will make at least 50% of the time (more for those that use STR or CON saves) unless you use it on a minion rather than the BBEG....
Before I started DMing I thought Battlemaster was amazing, but having seen it in play... it's just lackluster. Goading Attack sounds cool for a frontliner protecting their allies, but most of the time the enemy was going to attack you anyway b/c you're right there and it would have to take an AoO to try to move to someone else. Disarming attack sounds awesome until you'll looking at the monster statblocks and realize almost every enemy is equally effective without weapons as it is with them, and the vast majority can't be disarmed. Feinting attack sounds awesome until you see the EK getting Adv on their first attack for free from their familiar. etc... etc...
The core problem - and this has come up every time this subject arises - is that there is currently no "high ceiling" martial option. ALL fighters are Boring Basic Bonk. ALL barbarians are Boring Basic Bonk. Ranger and Paladin are "interesting" only inasmuch as they piggyback on spellcasting's inherently more tactical nature; their martial combat engines are just as Boring Basic Bonk as fighters and barbarians.
Rogues were the most Boring Basic Bonk until they introduced Cunning Strike, which is sortakinna exactly what players who are in favor of wider access to Superiority systems are looking for - meaningful, give-and-take trades for every round of combat, without the stupidity of saying 'you can trade out your entire Attack Action to...I'unno, maybe push somebody a little bit?' And so because rogues actually got something splendid and cool, The Playerbase rose up in frothing nerdrage and screamed it down the way they have every other ******* cool thing that came out in One D&D so far, so bleh. Guess I'll just implement Cunning Strike as a rogue-only feat or something.
Nevertheless. There is no option for players that are looking to play a martial character with a high level of tactical engagement and interesting round-by-round decision-making. if you want to make interesting decisions in every round of combat and actually be engaged with the fight, you are required to play a spellcaster. Full stop. Why does that need to be the case, the way Boring Basic Bonk people keep insisting?
Please do not contact or message me.
Rogue & Ranger both have the problem that most of their cool subclass features are really late game (level 11+). Rogue at least usually gets something cool at level 3 but then are waiting until level 9 for their next feature and often that one is an RP-ribbon feature, A ton of Ranger subclasses get very bland 3rd level features which is definitely a problem. I wish more classes/subclasses were designed like Barbarian, Bard, and Monk where the main class gives you a core resource and each subclass significantly changes what that resource can do - this is why the Cunning Strikes on Rogue are well designed.
That's what they did with Weapon Masteries, - though they should have just given everyone mastery in all weapons they are proficient in so it is easier to swap around to make those meaningful trades.
Weapon Masteries are a lame joke. Most of them are just straight buffs to your weapon attack, things you do every time you swing because why wouldn't you? There's no tactical decision-making, no give and take, no engagement with the battle - you just push your Mastery button, get your treat, and move on. The system is a huge disappointment and largely pointless, it does not accomplish one single objective Crawford claims it accomplishes.
Please do not contact or message me.
But which one do you use? You can swap between attacks which weapon you are using and thus which mastery property you use, and now they they've gotten rid of Flex, each one has a different situtation where it is the best choice. The main problem with the system is they were way too restrictive on the number of weapons you can have mastery in at a time (I'll be HBing that away for sure). But Fighters and Warlocks can swap on the fly from Pushing an enemy into an AOE, or knocking them prone, or getting advantage on their next attack (that's like 3 of the Battlemaster maneuvers you claim would fix everything about martials).
Both these points strongly remind me of procedurally generated game design where the developers expect the players to come up with ways to entertain themselves somehow. Look, I want to have things to do in combat, I want it to be effective and reliable (in that I wouldn't have to argue with a DM whether I could or could not do that because the DM might be RAW to the bone), and I don't want to dig through the entire DMG to find that one optional rule with a half-baked mechanic that allows me to do the thing that I want to do.
Well for starters, Cunning Strike didn't get "screamed down" - quite the opposite in fact, it got 94% approval per the UA8 intro video 🙂 It's definitely making it into 2024, possibly even unchanged from UA6.
But to reiterate my earlier point, Crawford caveated in both of the UA6 videos that Rogue's large combat progression deadzone is what allowed them to design something like CS for it in the first place. Or, to quote his exact words:
Base Fighter hasn't gotten a similar feature because it doesn't have that same "dry spell" problem; its own biggest gap between subclass features is not only shorter than Rogue's, it also gets a bonus feat, a third attack, and Studied Attacks during that window.(Barbarian does have a problem here though, I totally agree - Relentless Rage and Persistent Rage aren't enough texture on their own, and I said as much in my survey.)
It's in the PHB actually. Also Basic. Expecting players to read that is.... reasonable.
I wonder if I can convince my DM to let me flavor a greataxe or halberd as pollaxe? Part axe, part hammer, part spear, which weapon mastery do I use this attack? Pair with Battlemaster for moar options every round.
Mm-hm.
What this One D&D UA test cycle has taught me?
It doesn't matter how well something tests. It doesn't matter what J-Craw says. It doesn't matter what would clearly and obviously make for a better, stronger, more solidly designed game. None of that matters. This horrible "community" will scream and rage and cry and kvetch and riot and pitch an unholy ****in' Internet-wide tantrum until literally bum**** everything is exactly and perfectly identical to the 2014 release, just with variant covers, new art, and maybe some cleaned-up phrasing here and there. Remember - this is the same "community" that waged a months-long war against the idea of changing the word "race" to something else. A war that STILL flares up from time to time.
Wizards tried to make a car. The "Community" threw a worldwide hissyfit demanding faster horses instead.
No, I don't trust that Cunning Strike will make it into the 2024 books, because everything else worth putting in them has already been removed. Why would Cunning Strike be any different? Doesn't matter how well it tested. The Internet ragemonsters that have determined that anything "New", no matter what it might be, is automatically The Worst Thing Since [Godwin's Law] will have their way. And they'll drag the rest of us into Asmodeus' pits right alongside them no matter what anyone says or does.
Please do not contact or message me.
Putting two features one the same level? Impossible! Meanwhile WotC to casters: here you go, have a dozen of spells to choose from every other level, and class features, and subclass features, too.
Use an object? Use what object? What kind of efficiency and consistency do you offer? What checks does it require? Or saves? When does it work? Disarming, flanking, and trampling rules are in the DMG. Push, grapple, and shove are all damage-less, so usually subpar to attack action. While a battle master can do Bait and Switch or Commander's Strike. How does one improvise that and expect a DM to go along with it? If your answer is "just improvise", what is even the point of all these rules and class mechanics in the PHB? Why do we even have separate spells if we could just improvise magic?
I understand why you feel that way and I sympathize. Not all of my own optimism has been burned away by this process, yet.
Edit:
Monk gets two combat features on the same level (Extra Attack and Stunning Fist.) I don't think it's that simple or they'd have done that.
I linked to that because that was the closest entry to the relevant sidebar.
I see so you are being angry because you enjoy being angry. Because this "argument" is based on nothing at all, as has been pointed out above. So I take it back not even Battlemaster maneuvers will statisfy you, you'll literally never be happy about anything related to the UA because you already decided everything about it sucks. So I'm not sure why you are even still here? If the UA is inevitably going to be terrible, then why are you wasting your time reading it or these forums? Just keep playing 2014 5e, or HB it however you want to play.
Y'know? I actually appreciate that. It's the first time anyone's shown anything but scorn for my endless disappointment and frustration with this process. Thank you, Psyren. For what it's worth, apologies for letting that bitterness and frustration slip its leash.
I really ******* hate this forum's embedded/nested quotes, tried to clean it up but bleh. Anyways.
Thing to remember about the two-features thing is that Wizards has to make the game for stupid people. And I measn stupid people. Not like, regular dumb people. Or even exceptionally dumb people. One of the reasons they try very hard to avoid multiple features on the same level is that they want to sell books to people who are so fundamentally incapable of any form of higher thought that you're left wondering how they haven't managed to poison themselves sucking on something shiny in their day-to-day. Even over and above D&D's traditional issues with non-gamers that don't understand the language and mindset of gaming, this edition keeps being targeted towards people who do not have functioning brains at the explicit expense of people who do. And the **** of it is that Wizards is doing so poorly. They couold be doing so much better to accommodate the dumbs without wrecking shit for the rest of us and they refuse to. it's maddening.
And we're back to the scorn, and a total lack of reading comprehension to boot.
I'm one of those players who wanted them to blow the edition up, Agilemind. I wanted new shit. Wild, experimental ideas, entirely new and interesting mechanisms and structures informed by the company's years of experience with Fifth Edition. I badly wanted a 5.5e, with really divergent options and a Funky Fresh new feel. Shit like no monster crits/focus on Recharge abilities, universal spell lists, unified Origin rules? That shit was my jam. I loved it.
What we're getting instead? The same goddamn thing we've already had for nine years with the lightest, slightest, most minor and meaningless of cosmetic touch-ups.
Why even bother, if they're not going to change or fix any-goddamn-thing at all?
Please do not contact or message me.
Trust me, I was right there beside you, genuinely excited at the design evolution possibilities behind UA 1-5. Then Crawford released that mealy-mouthed "80% is our acceptance threshold, anything below that is on the chopping block even if it has majority support" and my faith in the process waned drastically.
In retrospect, their treatment of the Ardling should have been a sign - throwing something with at least 60% if not 70% approval straight in the trash with no further iteration was a clear harbinger of what was to come.
You don't think Rogues getting Weapon Mastery, Steady Aim, Cunning Strike and their second subclass feature all on top of +8d6 sneak attack per round by 7th level wouldn't have been a bit much offensively?
Well, then. Came expecting Ranger talk. That lasted all of a page and a quarter. I find that rather amusing.
Anyways, actually useful post, since we're all talking about martials - I mentally break them down into a 2x3 categorization. On the one side, you have tanks / meat shields / etc (Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin), on the other you have skirmishers / scouts (Monk, Rogue, Ranger). That's the 2 part.
Here's the 3 part. Fighters and Rogues are part of the Badass Normals trope - its their class fantasy . They don't fancy magic to improve their fighting ability; its all about raw talent and raw skill. This is a great trope, but it has an unfortunate side effect of kind of being the ones everyone else is balanced against since they're so iconic. Which in turn limits what the others get to do.
Barbarians and Monks are ... well, call what they do whatever you want. Ki, life reinforcement, cultivators, spiritualists. They're explicitly magically enhancing their bodies. By all rights, these guys should realistically be able to do almost anything a spell can using their bodies. Flying, punching harder/faster/better, blocking bullets either with a sword (jedi-style) or their chest (superman-style), going Hulk, being the Flash.
Paladins and Rangers are the spell-blades. They rely on mixing spellcasting magic with mundane talent. The Ranger has issues, in that while paladins do well with their smites and auras, the rangers hasn't quite figured out how it wants to do its thing. Personally, I'm all for going all in on better equivalents of bow smites and being magical snipers / skirmisher.
Artificer is kind of an odd one out, in that its crafting focused; right now, Artificer is basically magical blacksmith / alchemist with a side of wandslinger as a stand in for gunslinger. One that focuses on getting different abilities from different disguises / outfits could be fun. Which... honestly, I have a hate/love relationship with Artificer, because this class does the things I want Fighter and Rogue to do. But, as its here to stay, I'd like to see another crafter-based class; maybe one that focuses on different outfits and appearances instead of the blacksmith-alchemist approach of Artificer.
So... am I happy with the final version of any of these classes? Not really. Rogue and Paladin seem to be in a good place, and should be setting the standard for their opposites, the Ranger and Fighter. The Ranger needs its equivalent of smites - they tried with arrow spells, Hunter Marks and things like Zephyr Strike. Good start, but needs more and better. Auras aren't really appropriate, but an... inverted aura? That helps them be stalker-y could be better. Don't just restrict the spell list to being a bad druid rip off. The two are mirrors, one tanky and one scouty. Meanwhile, Fighter? Fighter does need its equivalent of Cunning Strike, but that's more because Weapon Mastery didn't go far enough. Fighter should be pulling off mid-combat Mastery swaps, more powerful Masteries, combining Masteries into a single attack, etc. Maybe even unique Masteries that rely on magic weapons.
The barb/monk need to stop being afraid of being innately MAGICAL. Of being physically faster, stronger, better than anyone else. Monk... is in a bad place overall, but Barbarian honestly isn't much better. Its ironic that the Barbarian is turning into a better scout than the Monk despite the latter's emphasis on Dexterity and Wisdom. And I -do- think the monk should get features that make it scout-like. And either less reliant on its stats, or get more bang for each stat. These guys are supposed to be all about being super strong or super fast. But they don't really FEEL it a lot of the time.
I don't want everyone to have combat maneuvers. It makes sense for the Fighter - being a master of all weapon-use is kind of their thing. And Weapon Mastery is a great vehicle for doing that, if they actually PUSHED it to its logical conclusion. I do, however, think that we should consider having non-Rogues get Extra Attack at 17 and 11. If not the Extra Attack exactly, everyone should have an equivalent, like the Paladin's extra radiance damage. The Barbarian isn't getting anything, the Monk isn't getting anything, the Ranger isn't getting anything. By default anyways - the better subclasses do offer something, but it could be better. Just make it part of the default class.
Fighters should be masters of Weapon Mastery, Rogues get Cunning Strike for variety. Paladins and Rangers should have a variety of smites for their combat variety, even if Ranger calls them different, or has them be different varieties of the Hunter Mark spell. Really lean into the spell sword and arcane archer angles. Honestly, the Arcane Archer subclass should be the bare minimum of what the Ranger should be able to do. Trick arrows (or trick swords, or whatever) should easily be part of the Ranger's spellcasting gig.
Barbarians and monks should be the embodiment of STR/CON and DEX/WIS use. They're all about their bodies being magically perfected beyond human limits. So make us FEEL that. Make more things like Reckless Attack or give different abilities with it. Primal Knowledge is a great utility ability, but it needs more, and to level up as the barbarian does. Level 2 monk gives three ki-uses - make each of them highly attractive to use, and upgrade them as you level. There's no reason that an experienced monk can't Step of the Wind on actual air and just... float there for the hell of it. That should be the level 9 feature, not running on walls. Running on walls should be, like, basic.
Well, Cunning Strike is options, not buffs. And as for weapon masteries, they're gonna mostly use Nick anyway as a dual wielding tax. Which reminds me again that it's not even possible to dual wield rapier with dagger in OneDnD. /facepalm
1) If you're dual-wielding you'll have two; Nick only has to be one of them to get the benefit.
2) Options are buffs. Sometimes, a debuff or rider means more damage in the long run even if it costs you some immediate damage in the short term. For example, Blinding an enemy costs you damage, but gives your entire party advantage; it also lets you hit and run most foes without needing to Disengage,. Withdraw also lets you escape foes without Disengaging, and Disarm might let you make an enemy drop e.g. their shield and lower their AC against every ally too.