I am aware that this have been a topic long discussed in the community and lots of people want as a core class feature, but I believe there are cons that come with pros of implementing a homebrew idea.
If the Battle Master's maneuvers become a core feature, this does increase the Fighter class's versatility, combat and social utility, and DPR while fulfilling the versatile and tactical warrior MARKETED theme of the class. For example, they will be able to choose whether they want to increase their defense with Evasive Footwork or Parry, aid allies with Commander's Strike or Maneuvering Attack, or hinder enemies with Disarming Strike or Trip Attack. Sounds very cool and tactical, and the Battle Master doesn't need to be undermined as the superiority dice start as d6's and can be only be increased with the Battle Master subclass. It is a shame that it didn't became a core things in 5e's playtest in 2014 (D&D Next) and 2024 (One D&D).
However, this ideas comes with a few set-backs when implementing this idea in CURRENT 2014 and 2024 5e-D&D. Especially if there are is another Fighter who is playing the Battle Master subclass. Firstly, it buffs subclass that already uses resources like the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Archer and Psi Warrior thus also not balancing them with the weaker subclasses. Additionally, it degrades the uniqueness and mystique of the Battle Master, and (if given to ALL martials) degrade the feel and theming of the Fighter class.
So, could you please share your thoughts for this homebrew idea that you may help those parties considering to implement this homebrew?
I compromise I'd suggest to people is just giving all your martial characters the Martial Adept feat for free - including those playing a Battlemaster.
That does sound like a good compromise. One thing I would like to do with that feat is to give up to 3 dice instead of 1that way players would get more enjoyment out of the feat.
I also would like to preference that my post was speaking on this topic from a game design perspective, and I want to open it up for discussion that I may help young and old DM when addressing Martial player wants and/or the Martial-Caster divide at their tables.
If you have martial players that want to play like a spellcaster, consider allowing spellcasters to reflavour their spells as weapon attacks. Hold Person can be wrapping a target in a whip, fire ball can be throwing a bomb, tidal wave can be hurling a boulder, eldritch blast can be a magical bow etc...
In general "do-it-all" characters are bad for the game, this is a social-cooperative game so it is deliberate that different classes can do different things to promote cooperation between them.
Alternatively, hand out tons of cool weapons and armour to the martials, there's lots of HB stuff and even published stuff around that could be handed out. TBH lots of it is much cooler than maneuvers too.
The suggestion, for quite some time, has been to remove battlemasters and give their maneuvers to every Fighter as a core feature. Basically, every fighter would be a battlemaster and be able to choose a subclass. That's what they should have done in 5e24 instead of adding weapon masteries.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
The suggestion, for quite some time, has been to remove battlemasters and give their maneuvers to every Fighter as a core feature. Basically, every fighter would be a battlemaster and be able to choose a subclass. That's what they should have done in 5e24 instead of adding weapon masteries.
Then what gets removed from the Fighter class to compensate? You could to this an then remove the 2 extra ASI/Feat slots, that Fighters get. But I suspect Fighter players would be more upset at losing extra ASI/Feats than happy at gaining maneuvers.
This has been talked about ad nauseum elsewhere. 2014 fighters needed a buff to bring them up to the power level of other classes. The suggestion with the most support was to simply make the Battlemaster maneuvers available to all fighters regardless of subclass (basically to remove the subclass of battlemaster and absorb their primary schtick into fighters as a core feature).
Instead they fed almost every subclass in the game, muscle milk, then added weapon masteries (that are also available to non-fighters) as their way of balancing things. I, and others, have argued that doing so has actually made things even more unbalanced than it was before.
There are a dozen or more other threads throughout this forum on that very topic, and a dozen more that point out that Rogues now make better fighters, than fighters do (but again, that's getting off topic and is better discussed in those other threads).
In this topic, I was simply answering the question posted above mine asking what would happen to Battlemasters if their maneuvers were given to all fighters.
There are a dozen or more other threads throughout this forum on that very topic, and a dozen more that point out that Rogues now make better fighters, than fighters do (but again, that's getting off topic and is better discussed in those other threads).
I think you might be onto something HarmAssassin. If the Fighter class is meant to be the tactical martial, then why does the rogue have abilities that make them more tactical than the fighter?
In Ahero's video on "Why DnD Martials Suck" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rb9kFFbkA), he says Martial classes need features that scale with level and reflect the class's core playstyle. For example, Barbarians should bulldoze through enemies while fighters should creating weakness which they and other martials can capitalize on. So when you have Rogues doing more things to afflict an enemy by using Cunning Strikes while using Weapon Masteries (something all martials have) you have a class that is stealing another classes intended core playstyle.
Yet again, adding to the list of reasons for adding Battle Master's maneuvers as a core Fighter class feature. A list that is balanced out for the growing list of reasons against such as homebrew (see AgileMind and Maruntoryx's concerns).
Fighters aren't the tactical ones, though. They are experts in using weapons & armour which is represented by their additional feat-slots so they can collect the most weapon / defense feats the fastest.
One could certainly redesign Fighter to be more of a support class, rather than a DPR class if you want a "tactical" martial. But it's always a trade-off which is made explicit in the 2024 Rogue - to impose conditions, you sacrifice damage.
OR you could make all Maneuvers cost a BA, similar to how Smites work, and basically make them the short-rest version of a paladin, where they get weaker effects but they recharge on a SR so can be used more often. And again take away the extra feats and replace them with Maneuvers and some degree of scaling of those maneuvers.
Fighter is kind of in the Ranger boat, where their core identity is pretty fuzzy, and different factions of fans want different things, and you'll never make everyone happy until the whole class is just a "choose-your-own-adventure" mush.
Fighters aren't the tactical ones, though. They are experts in using weapons & armour which is represented by their additional feat-slots so they can collect the most weapon / defense feats the fastest.
One could certainly redesign Fighter to be more of a support class, rather than a DPR class if you want a "tactical" martial. But it's always a trade-off which is made explicit in the 2024 Rogue - to impose conditions, you sacrifice damage.
I certainly agree that Fighter shouldn't be the DPR class, and I understand why Rogue should be condition afflicter. Barbarian and Rogues is built and marketed at the DPR class, hence the changes 2024-Barbarian's Brutal Strike, and 2024-Rogue's Cunning Strike.
So if Fighters are experts in using weapons & armour - having proficiency in all armour, shields, and martial and simple weapons, the highest number of ASI / Feats available, and (as of 2024) the highest number of Weapon Masteries - what should be a their identify? In which way should a Fighter support their team?
To me this looks like the Fighter using they above qualities and knightly scholarship in arcana, history, persuasion or religion to assert battlefield control. However, this does has some overlap with Paladin with their various auras and proficiency in religion.
On an unrelated note: based on the flow of this discussion, I guess this is why Laserlama's Fighter class works with combat maneuvers (known as "Combat Exploits") works as a core feature. The goat designed their Fighter class and its subclasses around that feature.
Again I would like to preference that it is okay for fighter's to have Battle Master's features as a core feature if your table is cool with it. This discussion is talking about the Battle Master's Maneuvers as a core Fighter feature as a standard across all tables.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am aware that this have been a topic long discussed in the community and lots of people want as a core class feature, but I believe there are cons that come with pros of implementing a homebrew idea.
If the Battle Master's maneuvers become a core feature, this does increase the Fighter class's versatility, combat and social utility, and DPR while fulfilling the versatile and tactical warrior MARKETED theme of the class. For example, they will be able to choose whether they want to increase their defense with Evasive Footwork or Parry, aid allies with Commander's Strike or Maneuvering Attack, or hinder enemies with Disarming Strike or Trip Attack. Sounds very cool and tactical, and the Battle Master doesn't need to be undermined as the superiority dice start as d6's and can be only be increased with the Battle Master subclass. It is a shame that it didn't became a core things in 5e's playtest in 2014 (D&D Next) and 2024 (One D&D).
However, this ideas comes with a few set-backs when implementing this idea in CURRENT 2014 and 2024 5e-D&D. Especially if there are is another Fighter who is playing the Battle Master subclass. Firstly, it buffs subclass that already uses resources like the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Archer and Psi Warrior thus also not balancing them with the weaker subclasses. Additionally, it degrades the uniqueness and mystique of the Battle Master, and (if given to ALL martials) degrade the feel and theming of the Fighter class.
So, could you please share your thoughts for this homebrew idea that you may help those parties considering to implement this homebrew?
I compromise I'd suggest to people is just giving all your martial characters the Martial Adept feat for free - including those playing a Battlemaster.
That does sound like a good compromise. One thing I would like to do with that feat is to give up to 3 dice instead of 1that way players would get more enjoyment out of the feat.
I also would like to preference that my post was speaking on this topic from a game design perspective, and I want to open it up for discussion that I may help young and old DM when addressing Martial player wants and/or the Martial-Caster divide at their tables.
If you have martial players that want to play like a spellcaster, consider allowing spellcasters to reflavour their spells as weapon attacks. Hold Person can be wrapping a target in a whip, fire ball can be throwing a bomb, tidal wave can be hurling a boulder, eldritch blast can be a magical bow etc...
In general "do-it-all" characters are bad for the game, this is a social-cooperative game so it is deliberate that different classes can do different things to promote cooperation between them.
Alternatively, hand out tons of cool weapons and armour to the martials, there's lots of HB stuff and even published stuff around that could be handed out. TBH lots of it is much cooler than maneuvers too.
If you did this, what would be the point of Battle Masters?
The suggestion, for quite some time, has been to remove battlemasters and give their maneuvers to every Fighter as a core feature. Basically, every fighter would be a battlemaster and be able to choose a subclass. That's what they should have done in 5e24 instead of adding weapon masteries.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Then what gets removed from the Fighter class to compensate? You could to this an then remove the 2 extra ASI/Feat slots, that Fighters get. But I suspect Fighter players would be more upset at losing extra ASI/Feats than happy at gaining maneuvers.
This has been talked about ad nauseum elsewhere. 2014 fighters needed a buff to bring them up to the power level of other classes. The suggestion with the most support was to simply make the Battlemaster maneuvers available to all fighters regardless of subclass (basically to remove the subclass of battlemaster and absorb their primary schtick into fighters as a core feature).
Instead they fed almost every subclass in the game, muscle milk, then added weapon masteries (that are also available to non-fighters) as their way of balancing things. I, and others, have argued that doing so has actually made things even more unbalanced than it was before.
There are a dozen or more other threads throughout this forum on that very topic, and a dozen more that point out that Rogues now make better fighters, than fighters do (but again, that's getting off topic and is better discussed in those other threads).
In this topic, I was simply answering the question posted above mine asking what would happen to Battlemasters if their maneuvers were given to all fighters.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
I think you might be onto something HarmAssassin. If the Fighter class is meant to be the tactical martial, then why does the rogue have abilities that make them more tactical than the fighter?
In Ahero's video on "Why DnD Martials Suck" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rb9kFFbkA), he says Martial classes need features that scale with level and reflect the class's core playstyle. For example, Barbarians should bulldoze through enemies while fighters should creating weakness which they and other martials can capitalize on. So when you have Rogues doing more things to afflict an enemy by using Cunning Strikes while using Weapon Masteries (something all martials have) you have a class that is stealing another classes intended core playstyle.
Yet again, adding to the list of reasons for adding Battle Master's maneuvers as a core Fighter class feature. A list that is balanced out for the growing list of reasons against such as homebrew (see AgileMind and Maruntoryx's concerns).
Fighters aren't the tactical ones, though. They are experts in using weapons & armour which is represented by their additional feat-slots so they can collect the most weapon / defense feats the fastest.
One could certainly redesign Fighter to be more of a support class, rather than a DPR class if you want a "tactical" martial. But it's always a trade-off which is made explicit in the 2024 Rogue - to impose conditions, you sacrifice damage.
OR you could make all Maneuvers cost a BA, similar to how Smites work, and basically make them the short-rest version of a paladin, where they get weaker effects but they recharge on a SR so can be used more often. And again take away the extra feats and replace them with Maneuvers and some degree of scaling of those maneuvers.
Fighter is kind of in the Ranger boat, where their core identity is pretty fuzzy, and different factions of fans want different things, and you'll never make everyone happy until the whole class is just a "choose-your-own-adventure" mush.
What I would do to see the early 5e playtest for the Fighter (where this was actually a thing) be fully realised…
Yes but less of an arsenal and significantly weaker so Battlemaster isn't entirely useless.
"I have advantage on dex saving throws what could go wrong?"
I certainly agree that Fighter shouldn't be the DPR class, and I understand why Rogue should be condition afflicter. Barbarian and Rogues is built and marketed at the DPR class, hence the changes 2024-Barbarian's Brutal Strike, and 2024-Rogue's Cunning Strike.
So if Fighters are experts in using weapons & armour - having proficiency in all armour, shields, and martial and simple weapons, the highest number of ASI / Feats available, and (as of 2024) the highest number of Weapon Masteries - what should be a their identify? In which way should a Fighter support their team?
To me this looks like the Fighter using they above qualities and knightly scholarship in arcana, history, persuasion or religion to assert battlefield control. However, this does has some overlap with Paladin with their various auras and proficiency in religion.
On an unrelated note: based on the flow of this discussion, I guess this is why Laserlama's Fighter class works with combat maneuvers (known as "Combat Exploits") works as a core feature. The goat designed their Fighter class and its subclasses around that feature.
Again I would like to preference that it is okay for fighter's to have Battle Master's features as a core feature if your table is cool with it. This discussion is talking about the Battle Master's Maneuvers as a core Fighter feature as a standard across all tables.