I am not sure if I am alone in this but I feel UA6 was more a test of rebalancing than of refining classes and testing interesting ideas, like previous UAs had been more focused on. Here are some of the ideas I think could make more daring experiments for testing in future UAs for the Warrior Group as I feel it is the group that currently is getting the least changes/attention.
Warrior Group
Currently, each group has a core concept, Expertise group gets expert skills, Priest group gets channel abilities and spell casting (divine/primal), Mage group gets arcane spell casting. The outlier here is the Fighter Group. I have said in other posts that I believe the fix to the fighter group is something resource based.
1. Combat Superiority
My suggestion is to move the 'Combat Superiority' feature from Battlemaster to Barbarian and Fighter with some changes at level 2. The charges should scale to proficiency bonus but only recharge on a long rest, so starting with 2 superiority die, additionally the superiority dies should be d6s instead of d8s. Battle Master then gets the feature 'Improved Superiority', increasing the damage dies to d8 and recovering on a short rest. Some Superiority options, like Commander's strike could also be moved to be Battle Master only, (or via martial adept feat).
2. Action Surge
with the above idea, Fighter's action surge should also be changed, Action surge recover on a long rest at level 2 but a short rest from level 5+, Action surge is one of the biggest reasons people multi-class into fighter and it offers just a bit too much at level 2, with the addition of the above suggestion fighter would be giving an insane amount of utility.
3. Monk Focus
Monk already has discipline points which act similarly to Combat Superiority, while discipline points needs a bit of rebalancing, what monks lacks is benefits from Wisdom, as a MAD class, Monk requires Wisdom but gets less from it then a Ranger gets from WIS or that Paladin gets from CHA but still needs it. I suggest a new feature that adds a small benefit based on Wisdom called 'Dedicated Focus'. This feature would be a long rest feature, where you select a benefit for the next day and can select some of the following benefits
- Mind over Body: When you expand a discipline point, you gain temporary HP equal to your Wisdom Modifier
- Wise Person: When you make a Persuasion, Deception, History or Religion check, you can use your Wisdom modifier instead of their normal ability modifier
- Foresight: When making a saving throw that isn't Wisdom, can add your Wisdom modifier to the save as a reaction
------
These ideas aren't meant to fix all of the rebalancing issues themselves, but to make the classes have a few more interesting abilities/uses. I have more ideas for more classes and depending on reactions, might toss some of them out later.
I generally like these ideas. One thing I would specify with giving combat superiority to Barbarian and Fighter is that the barbarian class should have its own set of moves seperate from the fighter list. Simply adding the battle master feature to fighter makes sense to me, it may have to be scaled back a bit etc, but the feature set works.
For barbarian Id like to see options such as throwing other creatures, doing leaping attacks, reactions triggering from being hit, charge options.. Basically a roster of abilities similar to the fighter options, but more thematically appropriate for a barbarian.
I like all 3, over 1 ideally I would give superiority dice to all 3 classes of the fighting group (Maybe initially with 2 dice and 1/2 maneuver, and increasing both by 1 unit at level 11), but I understand that could overload the monk with traits or options. This along with the "Martial Adept" feat and the Battlemaster subclass would share the list of maneuvers, but the availability of these could be limited by class (Battlemaster could use the exclusives of other classes.), and a few could also require a certain level.
And all of the combatant group should have an ASI at level 6 (Warrior also at 14 as he currently has them.), Differentiating himself from the rogue who also has an additional ASI having it before him. (Because it's not from the same group, but it still wins it for being a class that doesn't have magic at the base.)
Point 3, how would it work? X uses of the chosen bonus, limited until a new long break?
I'm going to be the odd one out and say that the warrior class are already too complicated.
They used to be the class you didn't need to know or select much of anything from, just roll the dice and hit things.
Now I'm not saying they don't need more power, but I'd really rather just see them getting a few buffs and a few extra attacks, rather than overcomplicate it and make them have more resources because all the spellcasters do.
It's not the resources that make the spellcasters broken, it's the broken spells.
Having an extra action each round added every 3-4 levels is a nice thing that shouldn't be rest dependent, as would the weapons mastery if it were tweaked and "warrior" specific only (meaning the fighter, barb and monk were the the only ones to get it)
I feel the barbarian is a bit clunky, though admittedly I'm not super familiar with it either.
The monk needs help, but it went from being one of the best classes back in the early days to a mess now. The redesign should be a return to the basic 201 monk, and then build it out fresh from there.
...For barbarian Id like to see options such as throwing other creatures, doing leaping attacks, reactions triggering from being hit, charge options.. Basically a roster of abilities similar to the fighter options, but more thematically appropriate for a barbarian.
ever since Diablo 2 I've been waiting for barbarian leap attacks and roars!!
...now I suppose I'm waiting for mixed species rules: Harengon + Leonin
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
I'm going to be the odd one out and say that the warrior class are already too complicated.
They used to be the class you didn't need to know or select much of anything from, just roll the dice and hit things.
Now I'm not saying they don't need more power, but I'd really rather just see them getting a few buffs and a few extra attacks, rather than overcomplicate it and make them have more resources because all the spellcasters do.
It's not the resources that make the spellcasters broken, it's the broken spells.
Having an extra action each round added every 3-4 levels is a nice thing that shouldn't be rest dependent, as would the weapons mastery if it were tweaked and "warrior" specific only (meaning the fighter, barb and monk were the the only ones to get it)
I feel the barbarian is a bit clunky, though admittedly I'm not super familiar with it either.
The monk needs help, but it went from being one of the best classes back in the early days to a mess now. The redesign should be a return to the basic 201 monk, and then build it out fresh from there.
I think I have the opposite preferences.
I really dislike that I have to play a caster to have access to any real mechanically interesting choices. The closest I get with a martial is probably the battle master, which is still ways off from the satisfaction of a spell caster. Sometimes I just wanna play someone who focuses on hitting stuff with weapons and still have mechanical depth to my character, and that is currently nigh impossible in 5e.
In my opinion, no class should primarily be using an unmodified attack action for the majority of their turns.
I'm going to be the odd one out and say that the warrior class are already too complicated.
They used to be the class you didn't need to know or select much of anything from, just roll the dice and hit things.
Now I'm not saying they don't need more power, but I'd really rather just see them getting a few buffs and a few extra attacks, rather than overcomplicate it and make them have more resources because all the spellcasters do.
It's not the resources that make the spellcasters broken, it's the broken spells.
Having an extra action each round added every 3-4 levels is a nice thing that shouldn't be rest dependent, as would the weapons mastery if it were tweaked and "warrior" specific only (meaning the fighter, barb and monk were the the only ones to get it)
I feel the barbarian is a bit clunky, though admittedly I'm not super familiar with it either.
The monk needs help, but it went from being one of the best classes back in the early days to a mess now. The redesign should be a return to the basic 201 monk, and then build it out fresh from there.
I think I have the opposite preferences.
I really dislike that I have to play a caster to have access to any real mechanically interesting choices. The closest I get with a martial is probably the battle master, which is still ways off from the satisfaction of a spell caster. Sometimes I just wanna play someone who focuses on hitting stuff with weapons and still have mechanical depth to my character, and that is currently nigh impossible in 5e.
In my opinion, no class should primarily be using an unmodified attack action for the majority of their turns.
I mean I get it. I think weapons mastery and specialization based on weaponry could help to scratch that itch if it were more fully developed. (I hate the weapons mastery or my favored class, BTW, but I do recognize that it could have a place, especially with these three classes), in as much as using/specializing in a weapon type could unlock more abilities as you level up and invest your "mastery points" of sorts into its own weapon specific skill tree.
You could also do it with weapons mastery specific feats (feats require the fighter class, must have X feat to get this (meaning it's a second or more level feat), and you must have X weapon type mastery active) so you don't have to build a new system per se, and give them at specific levels, (and separate from ASI /feats)
I kinda like the idea of that type of class building, treating features of the subclasses within a class as a menu of options, with some being dependent on others for melee classes tbh.
It would make it easier to make "the greatest swordsmaster that every lived" or a barroom thug that specializes in improvised weapons with a set of improvised weapon "level up" feats, or do a mix and match that leans into complexity.
Something more than the 1-2 choices then you follow the yellow brick road. Make it as complicated or simple as you want.
As for Bob's concern about overcomplicating things -- there isn't particularly a need for every class in the group to be simple is there? Why can't Barbarians fulfil the simplistic martial archetype (as is their fantasy) while Fighters and Monks fulfil the more skilful or trained archetype (which is also their fantasy).
Here are my thoughts:
Fighters - Superiority Dice
Every fighter gets a number of dice which they can use to fuel manoeuvres or express their skills. (These dice are expended on use and recharge on a short rest)
Includes things like Riposte, Parry, Trip Attacks, Disarm, etc.
Subclasses would add new ways to use these dice
eg. Battle Master gains more dice and more manoeuvres known
Barbarians - Rage Dice
Every Barbarian gets a number of dice which they use to fuel their rage or perform feats of strength. (These dice are expended on use and recharge on a short rest)
When a Barbarian rages they expend a dice and gain the number rolled in temp hp.
While raging, a Barbarian may:
Spend any number of dice when they attack and add it to the damage they deal with that attack.
Spend a die and add it to checks or saving throws targeting their Strength or Constitution.
Subclasses would add new ways to use these dice
eg. when a Berserker Barbarian spends a Rage die on an attack it hits one additional target / they add their barbarian level in damage / etc...
Monks - Focus Dice
These would either replace or exist alongside Ki/Spirit points, I'm undecided. (But they'd be expended on use and recharge on a short rest regardless)
I don't particularly play monk so I'm not entirely sure what people would want from these, but I'll give it a shot:
Spend a die and record the number. Each attack you make this turn deals extra damage equal to the number you rolled (synergy with flurry of blows)
Whenever you force an enemy to make a saving throw, you may spend a dice, the result of which is subtracted from their save (synergy with stunning strike)
Subclasses would add new ways to use these dice
eg. Warrior of the Hand (Way of the Open Hand) could gain access to Trip Attack, etc.
All of these dice would scale in size with level, and hopefully have a mid-level feature to restore some expended dice in a pinch.
I imagine that Barbarians would have no options to choose between, Monks might be given a few choices, and Fighters would have a larger list to choose a few from. This would both allow some classes in the group to be easier than others (the barbarian basically just has an option to do more damage or do better on a save), and also distinguish between the different archetypes more.
As for Bob's concern about overcomplicating things -- there isn't particularly a need for every class in the group to be simple is there? Why can't Barbarians fulfil the simplistic martial archetype (as is their fantasy) while Fighters and Monks fulfil the more skilful or trained archetype (which is also their fantasy).
Here are my thoughts:
Fighters - Superiority Dice
Every fighter gets a number of dice which they can use to fuel manoeuvres or express their skills. (These dice are expended on use and recharge on a short rest)
Includes things like Riposte, Parry, Trip Attacks, Disarm, etc.
Subclasses would add new ways to use these dice
eg. Battle Master gains more dice and more manoeuvres known
Barbarians - Rage Dice
Every Barbarian gets a number of dice which they use to fuel their rage or perform feats of strength. (These dice are expended on use and recharge on a short rest)
When a Barbarian rages they expend a dice and gain the number rolled in temp hp.
While raging, a Barbarian may:
Spend any number of dice when they attack and add it to the damage they deal with that attack.
Spend a die and add it to checks or saving throws targeting their Strength or Constitution.
Subclasses would add new ways to use these dice
eg. when a Berserker Barbarian spends a Rage die on an attack it hits one additional target / they add their barbarian level in damage / etc...
Monks - Focus Dice
These would either replace or exist alongside Ki/Spirit points, I'm undecided. (But they'd be expended on use and recharge on a short rest regardless)
I don't particularly play monk so I'm not entirely sure what people would want from these, but I'll give it a shot:
Spend a die and record the number. Each attack you make this turn deals extra damage equal to the number you rolled (synergy with flurry of blows)
Whenever you force an enemy to make a saving throw, you may spend a dice, the result of which is subtracted from their save (synergy with stunning strike)
Subclasses would add new ways to use these dice
eg. Warrior of the Hand (Way of the Open Hand) could gain access to Trip Attack, etc.
All of these dice would scale in size with level, and hopefully have a mid-level feature to restore some expended dice in a pinch.
I imagine that Barbarians would have no options to choose between, Monks might be given a few choices, and Fighters would have a larger list to choose a few from. This would both allow some classes in the group to be easier than others (the barbarian basically just has an option to do more damage or do better on a save), and also distinguish between the different archetypes more.
I'm open to any feedback :)
I feel like these dice are just ripping on the rogue and monk's dice (and now the Dance Bard's).
I like rogues. I hate the new "cunning strikes". (especially the ones given to the subclasses) If they were given to the monk for discipline points, and the monk simply got a larger pool of those discipline points, I think it would be an AWESOME thing for that class.
Then the weapons masteries as feats would be awesome for fighters, and yes, barbs could be the hack and slash for maximum damage basic class... I would rather the classes each have their own unique mechanics, otherwise you're just playing the same class, just reskinned.
As for Bob's concern about overcomplicating things -- there isn't particularly a need for every class in the group to be simple is there? Why can't Barbarians fulfil the simplistic martial archetype (as is their fantasy) while Fighters and Monks fulfil the more skilful or trained archetype (which is also their fantasy).
How long does a new player stay new? There's no reason for simplicity for the sake of new players past level 3 or maybe 5. After that, you want options other than "I hit stuff with my sword". You can use a complex tool in a simple way (like take a wizard and just blast stuff with whatever is the strongest spell available), but you can't use a simple tool to solve a wide array of problems.
As for Bob's concern about overcomplicating things -- there isn't particularly a need for every class in the group to be simple is there? Why can't Barbarians fulfil the simplistic martial archetype (as is their fantasy) while Fighters and Monks fulfil the more skilful or trained archetype (which is also their fantasy).
How long does a new player stay new? There's no reason for simplicity for the sake of new players past level 3 or maybe 5. After that, you want options other than "I hit stuff with my sword". You can use a complex tool in a simple way (like take a wizard and just blast stuff with whatever is the strongest spell available), but you can't use a simple tool to solve a wide array of problems.
As for Bob's concern about overcomplicating things -- there isn't particularly a need for every class in the group to be simple is there? Why can't Barbarians fulfil the simplistic martial archetype (as is their fantasy) while Fighters and Monks fulfil the more skilful or trained archetype (which is also their fantasy).
How long does a new player stay new? There's no reason for simplicity for the sake of new players past level 3 or maybe 5. After that, you want options other than "I hit stuff with my sword". You can use a complex tool in a simple way (like take a wizard and just blast stuff with whatever is the strongest spell available), but you can't use a simple tool to solve a wide array of problems.
TBH, sometimes you just want to hit things with a sword.
I'm not big on having 3 million rules. That's what drove me away from D&D back in the 90's, and I didn't come back till 5e.
I'm more into the RP than the tactics, and there's other games out there that emphasize tactics and math, (just as there's more that focus on what I like), the reason this game is as popular as it is, is because it hits the right mix. for everyone.
These would either replace or exist alongside Ki/Spirit points, I'm undecided. (But they'd be expended on use and recharge on a short rest regardless)
I don't particularly play monk so I'm not entirely sure what people would want from these, but I'll give it a shot:
Spend a die and record the number. Each attack you make this turn deals extra damage equal to the number you rolled (synergy with flurry of blows)
Whenever you force an enemy to make a saving throw, you may spend a dice, the result of which is subtracted from their save (synergy with stunning strike)
All of these dice would scale in size with level, and hopefully have a mid-level feature to restore some expended dice in a pinch.
My current iteration of the Monk, which I will get around to posting at some point, entirely replaces Discipline Points with Maneuver Dice, and Martial Maneuvers. At first I was modifying the Battle Master and Sword Bard to be compatible, and have the Monk use Superiority Dice... but since the Battle Master and Sword Bard aren't in 1DD yet, I decided to make "College of Fisticuffs" (Bard) and "Unarmed Warrior" (Fighter). The Martial Maneuvers are a superset of the Battle Master maneuvers. The Dice scale with Bard Dice (so increase at 5th, 10th, and 15th levels), and the Monk and Unarmed Warrior dice match that progression. Both the Monk and Unarmed Warrior end up with about the same number of total maneuvers, but slightly not exactly the same number of dice to use (sometimes the Monk has more, sometimes the Unarmed Warrior has more). Several of the Monk's abilities moved to Maneuvers, but the Monk directly gets 6 of them (over time) so it's like 6 hard coded maneuvers, and 7 free picks; where the Unarmed Warrior is 13 free picks. The Warrior of the Hand replaces a couple of their features with 3 more specific maneuvers (16 total), and the ability to add extra dice to their damage.
I could see having some maneuvers that are general maneuvers (all of the above, plus all Fighters and all Barbarians get access to them), and then some that require Fighting Style: Unarmed, some that require Rage, and maybe a few things like that... so then the general system works for all martials and a few martial-ish subclasses (sword bard, fisticuff bard, dance bard, bladesinger, that kinda thing), but there's still individual maneuvers that are flavor specific to certain classes.
As for Bob's concern about overcomplicating things -- there isn't particularly a need for every class in the group to be simple is there? Why can't Barbarians fulfil the simplistic martial archetype (as is their fantasy) while Fighters and Monks fulfil the more skilful or trained archetype (which is also their fantasy).
How long does a new player stay new? There's no reason for simplicity for the sake of new players past level 3 or maybe 5. After that, you want options other than "I hit stuff with my sword". You can use a complex tool in a simple way (like take a wizard and just blast stuff with whatever is the strongest spell available), but you can't use a simple tool to solve a wide array of problems.
TBH, sometimes you just want to hit things with a sword.
I'm not big on having 3 million rules. That's what drove me away from D&D back in the 90's, and I didn't come back till 5e.
I'm more into the RP than the tactics, and there's other games out there that emphasize tactics and math, (just as there's more that focus on what I like), the reason this game is as popular as it is, is because it hits the right mix. for everyone.
While I agree with you about simplicity over complexity (it's one reason why I prefer 5e over 3e), I think the Weapon Mastery rules might be an indication of the current direction: it's adding complexity to the martial/warrior classes. The ship may already be in the process of sailing.
But maybe it's something that could be done in a way that's optional? I'd have to think about that for what I'm writing.
As for Bob's concern about overcomplicating things -- there isn't particularly a need for every class in the group to be simple is there? Why can't Barbarians fulfil the simplistic martial archetype (as is their fantasy) while Fighters and Monks fulfil the more skilful or trained archetype (which is also their fantasy).
How long does a new player stay new? There's no reason for simplicity for the sake of new players past level 3 or maybe 5. After that, you want options other than "I hit stuff with my sword". You can use a complex tool in a simple way (like take a wizard and just blast stuff with whatever is the strongest spell available), but you can't use a simple tool to solve a wide array of problems.
TBH, sometimes you just want to hit things with a sword.
I'm not big on having 3 million rules. That's what drove me away from D&D back in the 90's, and I didn't come back till 5e.
I'm more into the RP than the tactics, and there's other games out there that emphasize tactics and math, (just as there's more that focus on what I like), the reason this game is as popular as it is, is because it hits the right mix. for everyone.
While I agree with you about simplicity over complexity (it's one reason why I prefer 5e over 3e), I think the Weapon Mastery rules might be an indication of the current direction: it's adding complexity to the martial/warrior classes. The ship may already be in the process of sailing.
But maybe it's something that could be done in a way that's optional? I'd have to think about that for what I'm writing.
I'm totally in favor of the weapons mastery sticking to the martials, though I'd keep the expert classes out of it.
What I'm suggesting is that you get those abilities on your weapons as a martial, then for fighters around level 3 you get to choose a feat that's like crossbow expert or you might get a great swordsman that gives you an extra die of damage when using a great sword, or you go for a barroom fighter feat that gives you +2 on unarmed or improvised weapons.
Later on, around level 6 or 7 you get to choose another one or one of the "upgraded" versions of said feats, like sharpshooter but it requires the crossbow feat, and it lets you negate 1/2 or 3/4 cover, or an improved bar-room brawler that now lets you add the option of rolling a save and also tripping your opponents or grappling them when you do damage, and over the course of being a fighter, you get to collect about 5 or 6 of these "fighter specific feats" (and separate from your ASI choices), that will give you the option of following a linear path with your weapon of choice, or develop a few weapon options for greater complexity in trying to balance out a few options.
You don't need a lot of rules to make something interesting, nor should you abandon all the rules, you just need to find the right rules.
Its fine to want a simple build to play, but why does that mean all Fighters need to simple? Just ignore the complicated features if you don't like them.
I really did not like weapon mastery. 1 I don't think it went far enough. 2 it just said to me martials should have maneuvers like the battlemaster but instead we get this limited version tied to weapons. 3. Its boring after a while. How many save or trips before your DM just thumps his head on the table out of boredom/frustration. Every time I hit, save or trip. Who wants that.
So sure, give them combat superiority. And please they should make it more robust.
One way of enhancing fighters without adding direct complexity is to just add more feats -- one of the signature benefits of fighters is additional ASIs at 6 and 14.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am not sure if I am alone in this but I feel UA6 was more a test of rebalancing than of refining classes and testing interesting ideas, like previous UAs had been more focused on. Here are some of the ideas I think could make more daring experiments for testing in future UAs for the Warrior Group as I feel it is the group that currently is getting the least changes/attention.
Warrior Group
Currently, each group has a core concept, Expertise group gets expert skills, Priest group gets channel abilities and spell casting (divine/primal), Mage group gets arcane spell casting. The outlier here is the Fighter Group. I have said in other posts that I believe the fix to the fighter group is something resource based.
1. Combat Superiority
My suggestion is to move the 'Combat Superiority' feature from Battlemaster to Barbarian and Fighter with some changes at level 2. The charges should scale to proficiency bonus but only recharge on a long rest, so starting with 2 superiority die, additionally the superiority dies should be d6s instead of d8s. Battle Master then gets the feature 'Improved Superiority', increasing the damage dies to d8 and recovering on a short rest. Some Superiority options, like Commander's strike could also be moved to be Battle Master only, (or via martial adept feat).
2. Action Surge
with the above idea, Fighter's action surge should also be changed, Action surge recover on a long rest at level 2 but a short rest from level 5+, Action surge is one of the biggest reasons people multi-class into fighter and it offers just a bit too much at level 2, with the addition of the above suggestion fighter would be giving an insane amount of utility.
3. Monk Focus
Monk already has discipline points which act similarly to Combat Superiority, while discipline points needs a bit of rebalancing, what monks lacks is benefits from Wisdom, as a MAD class, Monk requires Wisdom but gets less from it then a Ranger gets from WIS or that Paladin gets from CHA but still needs it. I suggest a new feature that adds a small benefit based on Wisdom called 'Dedicated Focus'. This feature would be a long rest feature, where you select a benefit for the next day and can select some of the following benefits
- Mind over Body: When you expand a discipline point, you gain temporary HP equal to your Wisdom Modifier
- Wise Person: When you make a Persuasion, Deception, History or Religion check, you can use your Wisdom modifier instead of their normal ability modifier
- Foresight: When making a saving throw that isn't Wisdom, can add your Wisdom modifier to the save as a reaction
------
These ideas aren't meant to fix all of the rebalancing issues themselves, but to make the classes have a few more interesting abilities/uses. I have more ideas for more classes and depending on reactions, might toss some of them out later.
Class groups no longer exist, right? It was a good idea, but it really faded like sugar in water beyond playtest 2.
Are they actually gone, or just not mentioned in the latest playtest?
I generally like these ideas. One thing I would specify with giving combat superiority to Barbarian and Fighter is that the barbarian class should have its own set of moves seperate from the fighter list. Simply adding the battle master feature to fighter makes sense to me, it may have to be scaled back a bit etc, but the feature set works.
For barbarian Id like to see options such as throwing other creatures, doing leaping attacks, reactions triggering from being hit, charge options.. Basically a roster of abilities similar to the fighter options, but more thematically appropriate for a barbarian.
I like all 3, over 1 ideally I would give superiority dice to all 3 classes of the fighting group (Maybe initially with 2 dice and 1/2 maneuver, and increasing both by 1 unit at level 11), but I understand that could overload the monk with traits or options. This along with the "Martial Adept" feat and the Battlemaster subclass would share the list of maneuvers, but the availability of these could be limited by class (Battlemaster could use the exclusives of other classes.), and a few could also require a certain level.
And all of the combatant group should have an ASI at level 6 (Warrior also at 14 as he currently has them.), Differentiating himself from the rogue who also has an additional ASI having it before him. (Because it's not from the same group, but it still wins it for being a class that doesn't have magic at the base.)
Point 3, how would it work? X uses of the chosen bonus, limited until a new long break?
I'm going to be the odd one out and say that the warrior class are already too complicated.
They used to be the class you didn't need to know or select much of anything from, just roll the dice and hit things.
Now I'm not saying they don't need more power, but I'd really rather just see them getting a few buffs and a few extra attacks, rather than overcomplicate it and make them have more resources because all the spellcasters do.
It's not the resources that make the spellcasters broken, it's the broken spells.
Having an extra action each round added every 3-4 levels is a nice thing that shouldn't be rest dependent, as would the weapons mastery if it were tweaked and "warrior" specific only (meaning the fighter, barb and monk were the the only ones to get it)
I feel the barbarian is a bit clunky, though admittedly I'm not super familiar with it either.
The monk needs help, but it went from being one of the best classes back in the early days to a mess now. The redesign should be a return to the basic 201 monk, and then build it out fresh from there.
ever since Diablo 2 I've been waiting for barbarian leap attacks and roars!!
...now I suppose I'm waiting for mixed species rules: Harengon + Leonin
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!
I think I have the opposite preferences.
I really dislike that I have to play a caster to have access to any real mechanically interesting choices. The closest I get with a martial is probably the battle master, which is still ways off from the satisfaction of a spell caster. Sometimes I just wanna play someone who focuses on hitting stuff with weapons and still have mechanical depth to my character, and that is currently nigh impossible in 5e.
In my opinion, no class should primarily be using an unmodified attack action for the majority of their turns.
I mean I get it. I think weapons mastery and specialization based on weaponry could help to scratch that itch if it were more fully developed. (I hate the weapons mastery or my favored class, BTW, but I do recognize that it could have a place, especially with these three classes), in as much as using/specializing in a weapon type could unlock more abilities as you level up and invest your "mastery points" of sorts into its own weapon specific skill tree.
You could also do it with weapons mastery specific feats (feats require the fighter class, must have X feat to get this (meaning it's a second or more level feat), and you must have X weapon type mastery active) so you don't have to build a new system per se, and give them at specific levels, (and separate from ASI /feats)
I kinda like the idea of that type of class building, treating features of the subclasses within a class as a menu of options, with some being dependent on others for melee classes tbh.
It would make it easier to make "the greatest swordsmaster that every lived" or a barroom thug that specializes in improvised weapons with a set of improvised weapon "level up" feats, or do a mix and match that leans into complexity.
Something more than the 1-2 choices then you follow the yellow brick road. Make it as complicated or simple as you want.
I tend to agree.
As for Bob's concern about overcomplicating things -- there isn't particularly a need for every class in the group to be simple is there? Why can't Barbarians fulfil the simplistic martial archetype (as is their fantasy) while Fighters and Monks fulfil the more skilful or trained archetype (which is also their fantasy).
Here are my thoughts:
All of these dice would scale in size with level, and hopefully have a mid-level feature to restore some expended dice in a pinch.
I imagine that Barbarians would have no options to choose between, Monks might be given a few choices, and Fighters would have a larger list to choose a few from. This would both allow some classes in the group to be easier than others (the barbarian basically just has an option to do more damage or do better on a save), and also distinguish between the different archetypes more.
I'm open to any feedback :)
I feel like these dice are just ripping on the rogue and monk's dice (and now the Dance Bard's).
I like rogues. I hate the new "cunning strikes". (especially the ones given to the subclasses) If they were given to the monk for discipline points, and the monk simply got a larger pool of those discipline points, I think it would be an AWESOME thing for that class.
Then the weapons masteries as feats would be awesome for fighters, and yes, barbs could be the hack and slash for maximum damage basic class...
I would rather the classes each have their own unique mechanics, otherwise you're just playing the same class, just reskinned.
How long does a new player stay new? There's no reason for simplicity for the sake of new players past level 3 or maybe 5. After that, you want options other than "I hit stuff with my sword". You can use a complex tool in a simple way (like take a wizard and just blast stuff with whatever is the strongest spell available), but you can't use a simple tool to solve a wide array of problems.
How long does a new player stay new? There's no reason for simplicity for the sake of new players past level 3 or maybe 5. After that, you want options other than "I hit stuff with my sword". You can use a complex tool in a simple way (like take a wizard and just blast stuff with whatever is the strongest spell available), but you can't use a simple tool to solve a wide array of problems.
TBH, sometimes you just want to hit things with a sword.
I'm not big on having 3 million rules. That's what drove me away from D&D back in the 90's, and I didn't come back till 5e.
I'm more into the RP than the tactics, and there's other games out there that emphasize tactics and math, (just as there's more that focus on what I like), the reason this game is as popular as it is, is because it hits the right mix. for everyone.
My current iteration of the Monk, which I will get around to posting at some point, entirely replaces Discipline Points with Maneuver Dice, and Martial Maneuvers. At first I was modifying the Battle Master and Sword Bard to be compatible, and have the Monk use Superiority Dice... but since the Battle Master and Sword Bard aren't in 1DD yet, I decided to make "College of Fisticuffs" (Bard) and "Unarmed Warrior" (Fighter). The Martial Maneuvers are a superset of the Battle Master maneuvers. The Dice scale with Bard Dice (so increase at 5th, 10th, and 15th levels), and the Monk and Unarmed Warrior dice match that progression. Both the Monk and Unarmed Warrior end up with about the same number of total maneuvers, but slightly not exactly the same number of dice to use (sometimes the Monk has more, sometimes the Unarmed Warrior has more). Several of the Monk's abilities moved to Maneuvers, but the Monk directly gets 6 of them (over time) so it's like 6 hard coded maneuvers, and 7 free picks; where the Unarmed Warrior is 13 free picks. The Warrior of the Hand replaces a couple of their features with 3 more specific maneuvers (16 total), and the ability to add extra dice to their damage.
I could see having some maneuvers that are general maneuvers (all of the above, plus all Fighters and all Barbarians get access to them), and then some that require Fighting Style: Unarmed, some that require Rage, and maybe a few things like that... so then the general system works for all martials and a few martial-ish subclasses (sword bard, fisticuff bard, dance bard, bladesinger, that kinda thing), but there's still individual maneuvers that are flavor specific to certain classes.
While I agree with you about simplicity over complexity (it's one reason why I prefer 5e over 3e), I think the Weapon Mastery rules might be an indication of the current direction: it's adding complexity to the martial/warrior classes. The ship may already be in the process of sailing.
But maybe it's something that could be done in a way that's optional? I'd have to think about that for what I'm writing.
I'm totally in favor of the weapons mastery sticking to the martials, though I'd keep the expert classes out of it.
What I'm suggesting is that you get those abilities on your weapons as a martial, then for fighters around level 3 you get to choose a feat that's like crossbow expert or you might get a great swordsman that gives you an extra die of damage when using a great sword, or you go for a barroom fighter feat that gives you +2 on unarmed or improvised weapons.
Later on, around level 6 or 7 you get to choose another one or one of the "upgraded" versions of said feats, like sharpshooter but it requires the crossbow feat, and it lets you negate 1/2 or 3/4 cover, or an improved bar-room brawler that now lets you add the option of rolling a save and also tripping your opponents or grappling them when you do damage, and over the course of being a fighter, you get to collect about 5 or 6 of these "fighter specific feats" (and separate from your ASI choices), that will give you the option of following a linear path with your weapon of choice, or develop a few weapon options for greater complexity in trying to balance out a few options.
You don't need a lot of rules to make something interesting, nor should you abandon all the rules, you just need to find the right rules.
Its fine to want a simple build to play, but why does that mean all Fighters need to simple? Just ignore the complicated features if you don't like them.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I really did not like weapon mastery. 1 I don't think it went far enough. 2 it just said to me martials should have maneuvers like the battlemaster but instead we get this limited version tied to weapons. 3. Its boring after a while. How many save or trips before your DM just thumps his head on the table out of boredom/frustration. Every time I hit, save or trip. Who wants that.
So sure, give them combat superiority. And please they should make it more robust.
One way of enhancing fighters without adding direct complexity is to just add more feats -- one of the signature benefits of fighters is additional ASIs at 6 and 14.