Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Verklemptomaniac Sep 11, 2014 17:26:23	I like playing fighters. This was notsofun in 3.5e. This was a blast in 4e (Brawler Fighter - Suplexin' Liches All Day Long). In this edition... I'm not so sure yet.   The 5e fighter is definitely a step up from the 3.5e fighter. You can move without sacrificing your multi-attack, and all your attacks have the same bonus. You can do things like trip and disarm and such (at least as a Battlemaster) without having to take 4 feats and a prestige class and specializing to the point that the only thing you can do is trip or disarm. But it's a definite step back from the 4e fighter - I can't replicate the 4e protection fighter who's stands as a wall protecting my allies from multiple enemies, I can't replicate the brawler fighter who noogies dragons into submission, etc. I know some people didn't care for the 4e fighter, but it was the most fun I've had playing D&D, since it let me feel like I was able to meaningfully contribute beyond "I attack".   I understand the 5e fighter is probably never going to be able to do what a 4e fighter could, but I think it could stand to see some tweaks. Most notably, the Battlemaster maneuvers list. I like most of the maneuvers, but since they're all available at level 1, they're all balanced at level 1. That leads to a few unfortunate results:   I never get better at the things I do. None of the maneuvers improve, except for the d8/d10/d12 superiority dice growth, which is essentially a +1 on average for each increase. Useful, but not very exciting or interesting. There's no feeling of heroic growth. A high level fighter should be able to perform epic feats of combat/leadership/toughness. Instead, the fighter manuever progression is like if a spellcaster only gained new first- or second-level spells as they gained levels, rather than getting access to more powerful spells. At first level, I get three maneuvers, so I take the three that seem best/best fit my char concept/etc. I get two more at 7th, 10th, and 15th. Since I'm picking from the same list, by level 15, I'm literally picking my eighth and ninth favorite maneuvers. Does that sound like the basis of a fun character? The solution, I think, would be to add higher powered, level-gated manuevers to reflect that high-level Battlemasters are the kind of heroic warriors seen in myth and legend - think Hercules, or Beowulf, or Cu Chulainn. A few examples, so you can see where I'm going with this:   Foe Tossing Charge (Requires level 10) You wade into battle with multiple enemies, striking at all who come near and throwing them aside. Roll a superiority dice. In this round, you movement does not provoke OAs, and you may move through occupied squares without penalty. As you move, you may make a number of attacks equal to your normal number of attacks plus your proficiency bonus, but no more than once against any single opponent. Add the result of the superiority dice to your damage rolls on a hit, and you may push any Large or smaller enemy you hit up to 10 feet. (Edited to add that the push only works on Large or smaller opponents.)   Crippling Blow (Requires level 10) Your strikes are precise and poweful enough to cause debilitating injuries to your opponents. When you hit with a weapon attack, roll a superiority dice and add it to the damage. An enemy hit must make a Con save or suffer one of the following effects, and may make Con saves at the end of its turns to effects: Disadvantage on attacks with a particular body part (arm for claw/weapon, jaw for bite, etc). Speed is halved (leg) Flying is disabled (wing) Reset the Board (Requires level 10) Your mastery of battle tactics is such that you can instantly see opportunities created by changing conditions on the battlefield. When you reduce an enemy to 0 HP, roll a superiority dice. All allies that can hear you may, on their next turns, spend their bonus action to take either the Dash or Disengage actions, and may add half the result of your superiority dice roll to one attack roll or saving throw.   Terminus Est (Requires level 15) Your mastery of the combat arts is such that your critical strikes can inflict mortal blows. When you crit with a weapon attack against an opponent that was already below half HP), roll two superiority dice. The enemy hit must make a Dex save or have their HP reduced to 0. On a successful save, add twice the result of your superiority dice rolls to your damage. (Edited to change the opponent HP threshold from "reduce to below half or was already below half" to just "below half".)   Thoughts?
#2 Lawolf Sep 12, 2014 8:57:22	I feel that battlemaster suffers from a few major problems. Primarily, it's abilities have too little impact and are not usable at a high enough frequency. This has to be the case though as the battlemaster must not overshadow the champion. In Essence, the mundanity of the champion is bringing the whole 5e fighter down.   I think that in order to have a heroic or mythic warrior that more closely resembles Achillies, Beowulf, or Herakles (as opposed to Aragorn or Gimly) you would need a new class developed from the ground up. A class that recognizes that  warriors capabilities should increase with level. A class that realizes that there is more to combat than dealing or receiving a high amount of damage. A class that is dynamic and can adapt to a variety of situations.   Well, I have been disillusioned with the 5e fighter for some time so have decided to build just such a class. I present to you, the swordsage:   HERE
#3 Arithezoo Sep 11, 2014 18:05:54	I agree.  While it is nice to get more maneuvers, because it does make you more versatile, what you say is also true: you are going to pick your favorites first.  You want to get more excited about picking maneuvers as you gain levels, not less excited.   The Elemental Monk is the perfect model for this.  If you want, you can keep selecting additional level 1 features, but you can also start picking level 6, 11, or higher.  There should be higher level maneuvers too.   Here is an alternate idea, because some people might like having a ton of minor maneuvers (the current model) rather than better ones.  Keep everything as is, but include improved versions of the maneuvers.  When you gain a new maneuver, you can instead choose to upgrade one of your existing maneuvers.   Something like this:   Disarming Strike: Upgrade 1: You can choose to have the item land up to 5 feet from the target, in a direction of your choosing. Upgrade 2: You can spend a second superiority die (do not add to damage) to impose disadvantage on the saving throw. Upgrade 3: If you have a free hand, you can choose to catch the item.
#4 mellored Sep 11, 2014 18:21:57	Battlemaster will outdamage a champion and EK for the most part.
#5 Vikingkingq Sep 11, 2014 19:09:54	mellored wrote:
#6 Verklemptomaniac Sep 11, 2014 19:16:09	Arithezoo wrote:
#7 Vikingkingq Sep 11, 2014 19:21:58	Arithezoo wrote:
#8 Verklemptomaniac Sep 11, 2014 19:28:10	Vikingkingq wrote:
#9 Lady_Auralla Sep 11, 2014 19:45:19	It seems that Mike and co fear showing any form of creativity or utility in fighter design.
#10 arnwolf666 Sep 11, 2014 22:25:07	I really like the Battle master (surprisingly) more than the 3.x fighter because I got tired of the builds where a person would just spam the feat all the time.  I like the idea that the swing is the general attack you will use most of the time and the special maneuver is used more rarely, kind of like you are trying to set up that cool maneuver.  Not saying the other is badwrongfun, it's just not something I like.
#11 Veleria Sep 11, 2014 22:36:43	Keep in mind at level 11 you can drop 3 different effects on one round. it can be extremely powerful to cause fear, prone an enemy to grant advantage then give te rogue a free attack during which 3d10 extra damage is dealt. thats pretty damned heroic.
#12 Lawolf Sep 11, 2014 22:53:31	Veleria wrote:
#13 FFSAA Sep 11, 2014 22:53:48	arnwolf666 wrote:
#14 2Chlorobutanal Sep 12, 2014 0:15:12	I think that attacking 10 times in a round is pretty heroic-sounding to me, and by far the most attacks I've ever envisioned in a D&D character up to this point that wasn't dependent on a gimmick such as OAs or bag of rats.  All 5e Fighters can do this with a minimum of investment, in some form or another.   If your issue is that Fighters don't attack really hard in one hit, maybe the Paladin is a better fit for you.  By the way, Paladins will not be smiting "all day long," and when they do smite, it catches them up to Fighter damage- it doesn't put them permanently ahead.   The 5e fighter is a more well-designed version of the 3e fighter, which makes sense to me given the 13 years or so of experience between the two.  It can't do the same degenerate tricks as a 3e fighter, but neither can a wizard or cleric do the same degenerate tricks (divine power, double greater magic weapon, divine favor; Tenser's Transformation, hasted spells, and so on).
(Reply to #13) arnwolf666	FFSAA wrote:
#16 1eejit Sep 12, 2014 4:44:01	Many maneuvers scale automatically, resulting in advantage which continues to be powerful as your characters' damage increases.   Disadvantage doesn't scale quite so well, becoming weak by the time you reach the CR30 Tarrasque with its +19 to hit - though it can still save you from a nasty critical.
#17 Psikerlord Sep 12, 2014 4:57:08	I would be happy to see higher level maneuvers for fighters, but they would have to cost 2 (say 7th+ abilities) and 3 superiority dice (say 14th+) to activate, instead of one. Similar to casters, and monks with ki points - using the higher level maneuvers should cost more, otherwise you have a quadratic fighter effect going on.   But yeah I'd be all for 2 dice maneuvers that might for example be stances that last as long as the fighter "concentrates", or more powerful attacks as folks have suggested. And 3 dice maneuvers would naturally be super stuff like dismembering/beheading, breaking other foes weapons or sundering their armour, powerful inspiration healing, and so on.   I think we'll see something like this in a splat book eventually.
#18 FaerieGodfather Sep 12, 2014 4:58:51	Lady_Auralla wrote:
#19 Arithezoo Sep 12, 2014 5:05:45	Vikingkingq wrote:
#20 Verklemptomaniac Sep 12, 2014 5:06:16	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #20) 2Chlorobutanal	Verklemptomaniac wrote:
#22 Arithezoo Sep 12, 2014 6:11:03	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#23 mellored Sep 12, 2014 6:35:15	Vikingkingq wrote:
#24 Vikingkingq Sep 12, 2014 7:17:52	Psikerlord wrote:
#25 Vikingkingq Sep 12, 2014 7:28:27	mellored wrote:
#26 FFSAA Sep 12, 2014 7:42:29	arnwolf666 wrote:
#27 mellored Sep 12, 2014 7:52:04	Vikingkingq wrote:
#28 Verklemptomaniac Sep 12, 2014 8:45:22	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #13) Slyck314	FFSAA wrote:
(Reply to #18) Slyck314	FaerieGodfather wrote:
#31 Verklemptomaniac Sep 12, 2014 9:58:31	Slyck314 wrote:
(Reply to #31) Slyck314	Verklemptomaniac wrote:
#33 Lawolf Sep 12, 2014 11:11:43	I'm fine that the champion exists, I'm just sad that it exists as part of the same class as the "complex" fighter. The champion subclass puts a limit on how impressive the battlemaster can actually be.   Compare the fighter and barbarian for example. The barbarian does similar damage to the fighter across all levels (more damage most levels actually). The mid level barbarian can rage for every encounter you are likely to have each day so has advantage on Dex saves, advantage on Strength saves and Strength ability checks, advantage on initiative, immunity to surprise, faster movement, resistance to damage, the ability to resist being killed multiple times, and more. That isn't even including subclasses, which can grant powerful abilities such as immunity to charm and fear, dashing as a bonus action, imposing disadvantage on all attacks against your allies, retaliatory strikes when hit, granting your allies advantage on all attacks, etc. Those abilities are far more evocative of a master of combat than what the fighter class gets.   Because the fighter class and subclass must all meet a certain level of mundanity for those who like that type of playstyle, those who want a more mythic fighter must suffer. The 5e fighter does a great impression of Aragorn or Gimli, but fails to really deliver on Perseus, Achillies, Lancelot, or Artemis Entreri. The 5e fighter couldn't even hope to represent the likes of Cu Chulainn, Herakles, Roland, Beowulf, or Gilgamesh.   Anyway, I think 3e had it right with the separation of the "normal fighter" and the "mythic fighter" into two different classes. The 3e warblade was a great class for those who wanted something more fantastic than the regular fighter. Sure, the class couldn't deal as much damage as an optimized fighter, but it had abilities that scaled up alongside the challenges it faced. A high level warblade did different things than a low level warblade, while a high level fighter still did the same things it always did (but with bigger numbers).
#34 Vikingkingq Sep 12, 2014 12:47:49	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #26) arnwolf666	FFSAA wrote:
#36 sleypy Sep 12, 2014 15:20:42	Would spending two dice to remove the saving throw for the attacks that have them be too expensive?
#42 FFSAA Sep 12, 2014 16:07:07	arnwolf666 wrote:
#43 sleypy Sep 12, 2014 16:28:40	Verklemptomaniac wrote:
#82 Lawolf Sep 14, 2014 17:53:57	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #81) arnwolf666	Lady_Auralla wrote:
#84 Zardnaar Sep 14, 2014 19:42:51	arnwolf666 wrote:
#85 Lady_Auralla Sep 14, 2014 19:54:09	arnwolf666 wrote:
#86 Zardnaar Sep 14, 2014 20:06:02	Lady_Auralla wrote:
#87 Gatt Sep 14, 2014 20:51:06	Lady_Auralla wrote:
(Reply to #74) Vikingkingq	arnwolf666 wrote:
#89 Lawolf Sep 14, 2014 22:02:56	Gatt wrote:
#90 Lady_Auralla Sep 14, 2014 22:36:38	Gatt wrote:
#91 andypalmer Sep 15, 2014 6:17:18	Verklemptomaniac wrote:
#92 andypalmer Sep 15, 2014 6:31:02	Lawolf wrote:
#93 andypalmer Sep 15, 2014 6:33:49	Lady_Auralla wrote:
#94 Lady_Auralla Sep 15, 2014 6:57:46	andypalmer wrote:
#95 Grifford Sep 15, 2014 7:10:20	Lawolf wrote:
#96 Lawolf Sep 15, 2014 8:53:36	Grifford wrote:
#97 Grifford Sep 15, 2014 9:17:49	Lawolf wrote:
#98 Bluenose Sep 15, 2014 11:01:59	Gatt wrote:
#99 Vikingkingq Sep 15, 2014 11:14:22	Grifford - you're also appealing to tradition, that the Fighter has traditionally been a mundane combatant.    And I think this quote is quite revealing: "Accepting that the power of a D&D spellcaster might rival fictional demigods doesn't mean I have to accept that the power of a D&D fighter should rival the power of Herakles."   So in other words, a spellcaster at end-game should be more powerful than a fighter at end-game. That's problematic from a balance perspective, and goes against a major element of the 5th edition Fighter Design Goals, namely "6. A High-Level Fighter and a High-Level Wizard Are Equal: Too often in D&D, the high-level fighter is the flunky to a high-level wizard. It’s all too easy for combinations of spells to make the wizard a far more potent enemy or character, especially if a wizard can unleash his or her spells in rapid succession...Balancing the classes at high levels is perhaps the highest priority for the fighter, and attaining balance is something that we must do to make D&D fit in with fantasy, myth, and legend. Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting."
#100 Lawolf Sep 15, 2014 11:21:24	From Mike Mearls on the fighter in April 2012   Fighter Design Goals The fighter is one of my favorite classes, so I’m a little biased. I also think it is a class that has always suffered a bit compared to the spellcasters in the game. Fighters represent the most iconic fantasy heroes, and it is perhaps the most popular class in the game. Therefore, it’s important that we get the fighter right. You can take a look at last week’s article to get a sense of our general approach to the classes. Here are the main points we’re looking at for the fighter.   1. The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting! This might sound like an obvious point, but the fighter should be the best character in a fight. Other classes might have nifty tricks, powerful spells, and other abilities, but when it’s time to put down a monster without dying in the process, the fighter should be our best class. A magic sword might make you better in a fight, but a fighter of the same level is still strictly better. Perhaps a spell such as haste lets you attack more often, but the fighter is still either making more attacks or his or her attacks are more accurate or powerful.   2. The Fighter Draws on Training and Experience, not Magic Fighters master mundane tactics and weapon skills. They don’t need spells or some sort of external source of magical power to succeed. Fighters do stuff that is within the limits of mundane mortals. They don’t reverse gravity or shoot beams of energy.   3. The Fighter Exists in a World of Myth, Fantasy, and Legend Keeping in mind the point above, we also have to remember that while the fighter draws on mundane talent, we’re talking about mundane within the context of a mythical, fantasy setting. Beowulf slew Grendel by tearing his arm off. He later killed a dragon almost singlehandedly. Roland slew or gravely injured four hundred Saracens in a single battle. In the world of D&D, a skilled fighter is a one-person army. You can expect fighters to do fairly mundane things with weapons, but with such overwhelming skill that none can hope to stand against them.   4. The Fighter Is Versatile The fighter is skilled with all weapons. The best archer, jouster, and swordmaster in the realm are all fighters. A monk can match a fighter’s skill when it comes to unarmed combat, and rangers and paladins are near a fighter’s skill level, but the fighter is typically in a class by itself regardless of weapon.   5. The Fighter Is the Toughest Character The fighter gets the most hit points and is the most resilient character. A fighter’s skill extends to defense, allowing the class to wear the heaviest armor and use the best shields. The fighter’s many hit points and high AC renders many monsters’ attacks powerless.   6. A High-Level Fighter and a High-Level Wizard Are Equal Too often in D&D, the high-level fighter is the flunky to a high-level wizard. It’s all too easy for combinations of spells to make the wizard a far more potent enemy or character, especially if a wizard can unleash his or her spells in rapid succession. A wizard might annihilate a small army of orcs with a volley of fireballs and cones of cold. The fighter does the same sword blow by sword blow, taking down waves of orcs each round. Balancing the classes at high levels is perhaps the highest priority for the fighter, and attaining balance is something that we must do to make D&D fit in with fantasy, myth, and legend. Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting   To anyone saying the fighter should not be like Roland or Beowulf at high levels, take a nice long look at these goals. This is what Mike Mearls said the 5e fighter should be. 5e fails to deliver on basically every single one of these goals.
#101 draegn Sep 15, 2014 11:28:09	I would be pleased if there were the AD&D 1E cavalier.   http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4alum/20100922   http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/files/excerpts/ua_cavalier.pdf   An even closer approximation to a historical knight came with the cavalier. Originally introduced by Gygax in Dragon #72 (April 1983), the cavalier reappeared in Unearthed Arcana where it took its noble place, not as subclass of fighter, but as its own class (with the paladin now subclass to the cavalier). The magazine description went so far as to state “. . . the cavalier class . . . is predicated upon knighthood and chivalry.” Compared to the mere fighter, the cavalier class was superior. Vastly superior. Cavaliers enjoyed combat bonuses with their preferred weapons, accelerated advancement in attacks/round, and immunity to fear plus high defenses against other mental attacks. They remained conscious at negative hit points. They could parry in lieu of attacking (subtracting their bonuses to hit against the attacker’s roll) with their weapon and/or shield. The cavalier simply fought better than the fighter; the fighter was merely the basic foundation.
#102 Bluenose Sep 15, 2014 11:29:49	Lawolf wrote:
#103 Ahglock Sep 15, 2014 12:52:11	Lawolf wrote:
#104 Grifford Sep 15, 2014 12:55:39	Vikingkingq wrote:
#105 draegn Sep 15, 2014 13:40:31	Lawolf wrote:
#106 Vikingkingq Sep 15, 2014 14:26:01	Grifford wrote:
(Reply to #93) Darth_Caffeineus	andypalmer wrote:
(Reply to #88) arnwolf666	Vikingkingq wrote:
(Reply to #89) arnwolf666	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #96) arnwolf666	Lawolf wrote:
#111 Lawolf Sep 16, 2014 11:58:35	arnwolf666 wrote:
#112 Bluenose Sep 16, 2014 12:29:23	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #108) Vikingkingq	arnwolf666 wrote:
#114 Grifford Sep 16, 2014 20:36:23	Vikingkingq wrote:
#115 Tony_Vargas Sep 16, 2014 21:23:51	Grifford wrote:
#116 Zardnaar Sep 16, 2014 21:38:22	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#117 Lawolf Sep 16, 2014 23:03:11	Zardnaar wrote:
#118 Grifford Sep 16, 2014 23:33:06	Tony_Vargas wrote:
(Reply to #112) arnwolf666	Bluenose wrote:
(Reply to #113) arnwolf666	Vikingkingq wrote:
#121 Lady_Auralla Sep 17, 2014 1:23:39	I dont want superhero powers, I want agency and utility. The only thing that stops the Battlemaster from succeeding at this is that yo can only spend your dice at a rate of 1 every 2 or so battles if you want them to last. I liked them when they refreshed 1/round and you could spend multiple as as you gained more to stack effects. Also higher level manouvres and non combat abilities. These are not superpowers but meaningful combat interaction that scales as the character levels gives new things to do. I mean if spellcasters only got first and second level spells as they levelled up there would be no end to the noise that would be made yet it is alright to do so to the fighter, hey pick powers from this list and as you level up take more powers from the same list that are just as powerful and you less want because you already have taken the ones you most want. Poor design.  I am sure with better effort more level appropriate non superpower abiliies could of been made eg behead if you hit by 5 or more and the opponent is below half HP spend a dice (which adds to damage as well) target makes a dex save and is killed on a failed save takes damage as normal if saves. There you go a high level fighter move that is not a superpower. How about spend a dice to add to initiative. see not hard at all just once again the developers gave into the fighter cant have nice things crowd.
#122 arnwolf666 Sep 17, 2014 3:10:09	I think they gave the Battlemaster has many nice things.  I could see letting them spam their abilities all day long if they would get rid of the extra damage from the superiority dice.
#123 Uchawi Sep 17, 2014 3:14:04	The biggest problem with the fighter, except for the EK, which should be a seperate class, is one mold fits all. It does not allow the flexibility to even attempt for different fighter builds. If fighters had something similar to maneuvers and specializations like domains for cleric, or schools for wizards, then we would be much closer. Even the maneuvers at hand for the Battlemaster are very basic, do not scale well, are are limited. If you had the flexibility then you could increase maneuver or spell power to have mythic fighters, rogues or wizards.
#124 arnwolf666 Sep 17, 2014 3:35:49	i think it is that word mythic that is making me disagree with most people on the fighter.  And I am beginning to think that I may not disagree with what many want added to the Fighter.  I really don't think the maneuvers should be something that can be done every round, but I am open to more clever maneuvers that simulate what is done in real life combat.
#125 Brock_Landers Sep 17, 2014 3:47:23	Uchawi wrote:
(Reply to #100) 2Chlorobutanal	Lawolf wrote:
#127 Zardnaar Sep 17, 2014 4:26:25	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #127) arnwolf666	Zardnaar wrote:
#129 Zardnaar Sep 17, 2014 4:36:26	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #129) arnwolf666	Zardnaar wrote:
#131 Lady_Auralla Sep 17, 2014 4:54:23	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#132 Brock_Landers Sep 17, 2014 6:24:18	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #131) 2Chlorobutanal	Lady_Auralla wrote:
#134 Lady_Auralla Sep 17, 2014 7:27:10	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#135 Lady_Auralla Sep 17, 2014 7:31:31	If superiority Dice went back to refreshing per round rather than a rest then maybe the "its magic" fools might go away....I wish they would just find something else to be dishonest about, anything to stop those silly fighter players from getting nice things.
(Reply to #134) 2Chlorobutanal	Nobody can stop any wacky thing from existing in other players' games.  When you bring it to a forum for debate, though, it'll probably get called as people see it.  My argument is not coming from a position of spellcasters being threatened but rather the opposite: giving a fighter more and more spell-like features dilutes the essence of the martial classes.   The more you move toward superhuman, limited-use abilities, the more these abilities resemble spells.  One of the stated design goals for the 5e Fighter was to be "mundane" but "skilled."  If you remove the "mundane" aspect, you're not really consistent with the design anymore, and that design echoes what many people, myself included, enjoy about playing a fighter or other martial character.   So, I reiterate:  "high-level maneuvers" sound like spells, and if you feel the need to have spells to achieve "agency," why not play a spellcaster?  It's probably easier and more fleshed-out to play an existing spellcaster than to try to create a new one inside the Fighter class.   Postscript:  Fighters have plenty of "nice things" to me.  Extra Attack (2) and (3) are great, as is Action Surge (and Action Surge x2).  Fighters are generally in the best position to use Grapple and Shove.  No character is going to appear more dynamic in a fight than a high-level Fighter.  Beyond all this debate about how awesome a Fighter's "offense" should be, they are also the "toughest" class, defined by their ability to survive and continue to deal damage over time.  You have at-will maneuvers you can perform (multiple times) every round (Attack, Dodge, Disengage, Help, Shove, Grapple, et al.), and you have high-powered maneuvers that a Battle Master can peform on a limited basis (most maneuvers deal substantially more damage than a regular attack and still include an effect that would normally preclude any damage).  Increasing these maneuvers any further would probably require the Fighter to lose some of their "toughness" in order to be fair to other classes, which again dilutes the core principles of the Fighter class.
(Reply to #136) DM12345	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #137) 2Chlorobutanal	They are emulating mundane actions, yes.  Cantrips are effectively the ranged and melee attacks of a spellcaster, bringing them closer to a Fighter than in previous editions where spellcasters had a finite number of spell slots, including cantrips (or cantrips not existing in their own capacities).   The OP mentions the need for "high powered, level-gated maneuvers."  Many assert that these would be somehow limited in number of uses.  High powered, gated by level, limited-use- Your "Waterfall of Swords Technique," or whatever you end up with, is essentially a re-skinned disintegrate, cone of cold, etc.
(Reply to #138) Diffan	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #139) 2Chlorobutanal	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #139) DM12345	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #140) Diffan	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #141) Diffan	DM12345 wrote:
#144 2Chlorobutanal Sep 17, 2014 9:26:07	This, to be blunt, would make a horrible rule for a game.   Elegance and abstraction are important for a playable game.  That's really the core of this thread.  Some people see value in simple elegance and others want to complicate things for what seem to be no net gain other than the complexity itself.
#145 draegn Sep 17, 2014 9:28:20	In our game we added an endurance attribute. Endurance is how many turns you can sprint, hours march, perform a strenuous activity repeatedly and make "John Woo" type actions that the player describes doing, similiar for the most part to actions seen in a television show such as Spartacus. Before you have to catch your breath and/or resort to skill use only in fighting. The "John Woo" type of actions are completely voluntary.    In game one of the martial characters chose upon learning that the city was betrayed by a traitor decided to "John Woo" a heroic effort to save the day. The player ran a length of wall, beat down an orc, used the orc's scaling ladder to fall/slide along the face of the wall to catch a grapling hook and line of another opposing enemy, knock that enemy off the rope as he was climbing, then climb up himself to wiggle into an arrow slit of the gate house room, beat down the traitor's goons and lower the portculus to stop the city from being overrun.   This character is 7th level at the moment.    Perhaps an attribute based system would work for others as well?
#146 Brock_Landers Sep 17, 2014 9:49:25	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #138) Verklemptomaniac	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #144) Diffan	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#149 Tony_Vargas Sep 17, 2014 10:59:35	Zardnaar wrote:
#150 DemoMonkey Sep 17, 2014 13:04:38	Warlock Invocations and Elemental Monk Ki abilities have some that are gated by Class level. No reason their couldn't be Battlemaster abilities that do the same. In fact, I fully expect to see such a thing in the re-launched Dragon, or the first options book.   Ideally, there should be two distinct lists of them, one that hews to the "Fighters are just guys who are really good at fighting" and one that explores "I am a god among men!", so that groups with different playstyles can adopt the one(s) that appeal to them.   The real question to me is, if you are going to improve the Battlemaster in that way, what are you going to give the Champion and the EK?
(Reply to #137) arnwolf666	DM12345 wrote:
(Reply to #141) arnwolf666	DM12345 wrote:
#153 arnwolf666 Sep 17, 2014 13:30:10	What exactly are the abilities people want to give the fighter?
#154 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 13:34:20	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #153) Verklemptomaniac	arnwolf666 wrote:
#156 Zardnaar Sep 17, 2014 13:53:10	Tony_Vargas wrote:
(Reply to #152) DM12345	arnwolf666 wrote:
#158 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 13:59:01	Zardnaar wrote:
#159 Zardnaar Sep 17, 2014 14:11:54	Lawolf wrote:
#160 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 14:21:36	Zardnaar wrote:
#161 Diffan Sep 17, 2014 14:38:54	I'm fairly sure the Warlord WAS a pretty popular class, not sure where the notion came from?
(Reply to #154) arnwolf666	Lawolf wrote:
#163 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 15:19:59	arnwolf666 wrote:
#164 Hebitsuikaza Sep 17, 2014 14:59:20	DM12345 wrote:
(Reply to #163) arnwolf666	Lawolf wrote:
#166 Zardnaar Sep 17, 2014 15:28:30	Diffan wrote:
#167 Grifford Sep 17, 2014 15:37:39	Lawolf wrote:
#168 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 15:50:04	Grifford wrote:
#169 Zardnaar Sep 17, 2014 15:58:07	Lawolf wrote:
#170 Gnarl Sep 17, 2014 15:58:05	Grifford wrote:
#171 Grifford Sep 17, 2014 16:21:36	Lawolf wrote:
#172 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 16:59:06	Grifford wrote:
#173 Gnarl Sep 17, 2014 17:25:00	Grifford wrote:
(Reply to #166) Tony_Vargas	Zardnaar wrote:
#175 Zardnaar Sep 17, 2014 17:53:32	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#176 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 22:36:23	Gnarl wrote:
#177 arnwolf666 Sep 17, 2014 18:36:25	A 4E warlord is a thing I don't want to ever see.  Give the Battlemaster maneuvers.  The whole concept is anathema to me that ruins the game because Fighters and Paladins are supposed to be very leadership oriented or with the ability to be that way if a player would want to play one that way. So now we have the Warlord that is the team leader, sit back there Fighter and take orders from your commander,  Chaplin, I mean Cleric sit back their and pray I have the healing under control.  It doesn't work for me.
#178 Grifford Sep 17, 2014 18:49:03	Lawolf wrote:
#179 Tony_Vargas Sep 17, 2014 19:06:45	arnwolf666 wrote:
#180 Vikingkingq Sep 17, 2014 20:25:33	Grifford wrote:
#181 arnwolf666 Sep 17, 2014 20:32:46	I don't think a Fighter and Wizard or any class is equal, they each excel at different things.  Make them equal would be boring.
#182 arnwolf666 Sep 17, 2014 20:42:24	I am very Gygaxian, Moldvay/Cook, and Mentzer in what I want in a D&D game.  That's what I come to D&D to play, those are the kinds of stories I like.  I just think they should make different splats for different folks.  D&D the mythic edition, D&D the Steam Punk edition, etc.  I think those would be far more interesting than 50 splat books with different mechanics that don't always integrate well.
#183 Grifford Sep 18, 2014 11:04:24	Vikingkingq wrote:
#184 Tony_Vargas Sep 18, 2014 11:56:15	You say "an end-game Fighter [can] do anything a level 1 Fighter can do, except a bit better." and I can say the same thing about any class in the book. They just do what they do at 1st level, only better. Your reductionist argument works both ways.
#185 Lawolf Sep 18, 2014 11:45:55	Yeah...saying that other classes do the same thing they do at low levels but with bigger numbers is definitely not true.   For example a low level wizard can charm an enemy. A mid level wizard can dominate an enemy. A low level wizard can teleport himself 30 feet. A mid level wizard can teleport the whole party across the world. A low level wizard can cast hold person to disable an enemy warrior. A high level wizard can cast reverse gravity to disable a whole regiment with no saving throw. A mid level wizard slightly bend reality with prestidigitation. A high level wizard can completely warp reality with wish.   Compared to: A low level fighter can do 15 DPR. A high level fighter can do 45 DPR. A low level fighter can shovean ogre 50% of the time. A high level fighter can shove an ogre 75% of the time. A low level fighter cannot grapple a giant. A high level fighter cannot grapple a giant.
#186 Tony_Vargas Sep 18, 2014 11:54:48	Lawolf wrote:
#187 Grifford Sep 18, 2014 11:57:31	Lawolf wrote:
#188 Grifford Sep 18, 2014 11:59:39	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#189 Lawolf Sep 18, 2014 12:26:26	Grifford wrote:
#190 Brock_Landers Sep 18, 2014 12:19:47	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#191 Grifford Sep 18, 2014 12:28:38	Lawolf wrote:
#192 DemoMonkey Sep 18, 2014 12:29:17	Gated to higher, levels give Battlemaster Fighters access to powerful and damaging maneuvers that take their entire action (ie, take the place of all of their attacks). That's what a lot of the B09S abilities did. It would give them more "cinematic" things to do, without changing the overall DPR which is just fine where it is.
#193 Slyck314 Sep 18, 2014 12:46:30	When it come to Herakles, Achilles, Gilgamesh and such, I feel like they have capabilities, blessing and boons that are more elements/rewards of their campaign/setting and not elements of their class. But does the high level fighter fall short for the likes of Lancelot, Roland and Beowulf? How many npc knights could and 18th level fighter take in continuous grous of 3 at a time?
(Reply to #192) Verklemptomaniac	DemoMonkey wrote:
#195 Tony_Vargas Sep 18, 2014 13:45:30	Slyck314 wrote:
#196 ClockworkNecktie Sep 18, 2014 14:30:21	Personally I don't have any problem with the level of tactical variety available to the Battlemaster (with the important caviat that you need plenty if short rests to make him shine). If you look at Lawolf's excellent warblade, for example, it has a lot of great maneuvers, but most of them are alternate (sometimes superior) mechanics for things the Battlemaster could already do. For example, Time Stands Still is basically using your action surge to Dash and spending an expertise die to boost your AC vs AoOs.    The trick is that the Battlemaster requires you to put the pieces together yourself, and then slap a cool name on it if you want.
#197 arnwolf666 Sep 18, 2014 15:22:51	Amazes me how they cut the number of spell slots drastically in this edition, make stacking spells way more difficult, concentration ending spells already cast.  And people still say the wizard is too powerful.  Blows my mind.  In fact they go as far as to make the sorcerer the metamagic user, which should have gone to the wizard.
#198 Lawolf Sep 18, 2014 15:34:27	arnwolf666 wrote:
#199 Tony_Vargas Sep 18, 2014 15:42:25	arnwolf666 wrote:
#200 Grifford Sep 18, 2014 15:42:55	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #199) arnwolf666	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#202 Tony_Vargas Sep 18, 2014 15:51:42	arnwolf666 wrote:
#203 Chiisai_Usagi Sep 18, 2014 15:52:49	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #203) arnwolf666	Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
#205 Gnarl Sep 18, 2014 16:26:46	arnwolf666 wrote:
#206 Lipfi Sep 18, 2014 16:28:28	"3. This is a forum for fans and prospective new players of the new edition of  Dungeons & Dragons. Disparaging the edition or the game, or comparing it to other editions or other games are not acceptable topics of conversation in these forums. "
#207 Lawolf Sep 18, 2014 16:46:44	Grifford wrote:
#208 Slyck314 Sep 18, 2014 17:03:23	The best at playing the attrition game. Which is not nothing.
#209 Zardnaar Sep 18, 2014 17:13:28	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #208) Darth_Caffeineus	Slyck314 wrote:
#211 Zardnaar Sep 18, 2014 17:58:59	Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
#212 arnwolf666 Sep 18, 2014 18:26:03	mmm. I love 2E magic resistance.
#213 Gatt Sep 18, 2014 19:24:03	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#214 ClockworkNecktie Sep 18, 2014 19:32:26	Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
#215 Tony_Vargas Sep 18, 2014 20:52:18	Gatt wrote:
(Reply to #31) arnwolf666	Verklemptomaniac wrote:
#217 2Chlorobutanal Sep 18, 2014 21:29:23	I noticed that in this thread, Fighters were marginalized because they dealt "single target damage," which wasn't useful.   Meanwhile, in other threads people are marginalizing AoE spells or abilities because they feel that it's better to eliminate one threat at a time to reduce enemy damage throughput.   Both have their uses.   Please don't forget that this is a team game and that most of the "utility" things that a Wizard or spellcaster will do are benefits for the entire party or could equally be applied to the Fighter instead of the Wizard- teleports, flight, magical walls or invisibility, etc.   Is it generally better to cast greater invisibility on the Wizard or the Rogue?  Upon whom, spellcaster or fighter, is it generally better to cast haste?  Which class benefits the most from a magic weapon or elemental weapon spell?   When you're talking about a usual party, spellcasters are the force multipliers and fighters (attackers, not Fighters) are the force.   When the Cleric holds the enemy bugbear, it is the Fighter that dispatches it with critical strikes.   A Wizard could expend a 6th level spell slot to attempt to disintegrate a demon (75 damage, adjusted for save chance) and the Fighter could attack it 6 times for similar damage (85 with a greatsword, 72 with a longsword, adjusted for accuracy and feats such as Great Weapon Master.  Or the Wizard could haste the Fighter and then hold the demon, so that the Fighter can deal up to 8 critical hits (with Great Weapon Master) for 253 damage.   A Wizard could cast fireball on a group of gnolls, possibly killing but more than likely just injuring at least some of them, or he or she could web or sleet storm the gnolls, rendering many unable to attack effectively while the Fighter and Rogue quickly move about killing a few gnolls at a time, reducing their numbers each turn.
#218 Gnarl Sep 18, 2014 21:46:08	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#219 2Chlorobutanal Sep 18, 2014 22:38:00	The Fighter can pin an enemy to give the Wizard's disintegrate target saving throw disadvantage, or the Rogue advantage on his or her attacks.     However, this is just how D&D classes work.  It's a party system and not every character is designed to be individually equivalent.  Battle Master fighters can give people movement reactions, advantage, or THP.  Protection Style Fighters can impose disadvantage on incoming attacks directed at their allies.  Sentinels can prevent enemies from disengaging and/or attack them for choosing to attack others.  Mage Slayers can do similar reactions to spellcasting.   Fighters also get the "damage-dealing" role in 5e, it seems, along with other warrior-types and Rogues.  Single target as it may be, it's the best for reliably eliminating targets over the course of a battle.  To complement this, they also get the best AC, the ability to re-roll saving throws, a bit of bonus action self-healing (virtual Hit Dice), and a large HP pool.   I appreciate that different classes have different capabilities and, outside of edge case specialty builds, would not play a Fighter for mass battlefield control or a Wizard for front-line fighting any more than I would play a Rogue for healing and buffing or a Cleric for damage-dealing.
#220 Lord_Ventnor Sep 18, 2014 22:55:09	I want to play a high-level fighter who can choke-slam a dragon. Where's my build?
#221 2Chlorobutanal Sep 18, 2014 23:05:17	This sounds fairly facetious, but just for fun:   Any Fighter with an enlarge spell can "choke slam" the dragons in the basic rules:  Attack action (with Extra Attack): Grapple, Shove (prone).  Mission Accomplished! An Eldritch Knight could do this themselves with enlarge/reduce.
#222 Grifford Sep 18, 2014 23:19:29	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #221) Lord_Ventnor	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#224 2Chlorobutanal Sep 18, 2014 23:40:58	He or she can technically grapple 24/7, but even Fighters have rest-limited abilities in 5e, such as Action Surge and Second Wind, as a way to create parity and cohesion among the classes; likewise, the spellcaster classes now have "at-will" cantrips.   As far as grappling dragons goes, that's a very specific example, but there are ways to accomplish it with just the PHB.  Regardless, only the larger dragons would require a magic spell for dragon-wrestling, and that spell is of a lower-level spell slot- one that a high-level Eldritch Knight Fighter could cast at least half a dozen times per day if desired.
#225 Brock_Landers Sep 19, 2014 0:09:00	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#226 Hebitsuikaza Sep 19, 2014 1:51:52	arnwolf666 wrote:
#227 Uchawi Sep 19, 2014 0:55:43	It is disappointing that they designed martial characters as self contained units, including mechanics, but casters have a common base mechanic, i.e. spells. You can see and appreciate the multiple variations or different takes on spell use (magic) as presented with casters and hybrids. There is no equivalent for martial characters. If they had a baseline in place like maneuvers (martial ability), then it would be much easier to create multiple variations of martial classes. The game would be more streamlined and easier to learn.
(Reply to #224) arnwolf666	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #227) 2Chlorobutanal	Uchawi wrote:
#230 Grifford Sep 19, 2014 7:40:05	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
(Reply to #230) ChrisTheS	Grifford wrote:
#232 Hebitsuikaza Sep 19, 2014 8:21:50	[quote="Grifford"]   Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#233 DemoMonkey Sep 19, 2014 9:09:04	"That's what the Warlord promised that the Battlemaster is an utter failure at. Allowing the required party job of support to be filled without requiring someone to be a proselytizing to a god, playing a musical instrument and generally not even being good at the job or being a magical hippie."   Those are awesome contemptuous phrases to use for clerics, bards and druids. Really gets across the contempt. Bravo!   Can you give us a phrse like that for warlords too, so we can be fair and inclusive and make ALL the support classes seem like equally awful foolish choices only terrible people would play?   Thanksyerapeach.
#234 Grifford Sep 19, 2014 9:26:57	ChrisTheS wrote:
(Reply to #216) Verklemptomaniac	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #222) Verklemptomaniac	Grifford wrote:
#237 ChrisCarlson Sep 19, 2014 10:13:32	Verklemptomaniac wrote:
(Reply to #237) DM12345	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#239 Grifford Sep 19, 2014 10:29:58	Verklemptomaniac wrote:
#240 DemoMonkey Sep 19, 2014 10:35:41	"I've said it before, and I'll say it again - what's so bad about people who enjoy fighters with a bit more crunch to them having an option that effectively supports that playstyle? "   Nothing.   "Who does it hurt, as long as it's reasonably balanced?"   Disclaimer: I am explaining the thought process for this next part. I am not claiming I agree or disagree with it.   "Who does it hurt, "   People whose perception of the default, bog-standard D&D world is one in  which the only thing that allows one to exceed the limits of "movie physics"  is explicit magic. If the things your suggested character can do undercuts that baseline assumption, they feel that would be damaging to the game as a whole. When you can't use the real world as at least a rule of thumb for non-magical things, then you can't intuit the way things will work in game, and they think that's bad.   If you limited the maneuvers to things which fall into the "movie physics" categorization, you wouldn't have any pushback. But would that be satisfactory to the people who want to do the hyperbolic, larger-than-life things that happen in epic legends and fairy stories? Probably not.   It's a fundamental disconnect between two views of how the default D&D world works, and they can't both be right in the same setting. And for better or worse, people think the "non-setting" of the published rules, without a specific sourcebook or DM house rules, IS a setting.   We now return you to me stating my own beliefs, already in progress.   "as long as it's reasonably balanced?"   A separate issue. If people believe the Battlemaster Fighter is balanced now, and you want to give it more powerful abilities, the question is "What are you willing to give UP?"   And if the answer to that is "Nothing", then what you are really lobbying for is an overall power increase, not just an expansion of options.     Me, I still say if you are going to use BO9S and 4E as inspiration, follow through. Have the new higher level access abilities be what used to be called "Full Round Actions".
#241 Brock_Landers Sep 19, 2014 10:48:43	The Edition War is in full swing, but now has a swankier agenda, but, still now, the same culprits, that should really just jet-off to their preferred edition site, I mean, really, as a normal person, can you imagine loitering around a site of something that you disdain just to deride it...does that not say so much about the character-type that you are dealing with....I mean, no-go, stragglers, believe...what sort of person would maintain that level of systematic hatred...?
(Reply to #239) Verklemptomaniac	Grifford wrote:
(Reply to #240) DM12345	DemoMonkey wrote:
#244 Verklemptomaniac Sep 19, 2014 11:15:16	DemoMonkey wrote:
#245 Bluenose Sep 19, 2014 12:05:11	Grifford wrote:
#246 Grifford Sep 19, 2014 12:27:01	Verklemptomaniac wrote:
#247 Grifford Sep 19, 2014 12:30:33	Bluenose wrote:
#248 Bluenose Sep 19, 2014 12:34:40	Grifford wrote:
#249 Lawolf Sep 19, 2014 12:45:01	Umm what?   Spellcasters have tools to affect noncombat situations that martial characters do not.    Divinations, enchantments, illusions, conjurations, and utility spells (like flight, invisibility, disguise self, etc). There is literally a spell for every conceivable problem an adventurer could face.   Sure a fighter and a wizard are equal in terms of pure RP, but wizards are much better suited to deal with the social and exploration pillars of gameplay.
#250 Grifford Sep 19, 2014 12:58:26	Lawolf wrote:
#251 Verklemptomaniac Sep 19, 2014 13:10:45	Grifford wrote:
(Reply to #250) Diffan	Grifford wrote:
#253 Verklemptomaniac Sep 19, 2014 13:24:03	Grifford wrote:
(Reply to #251) arnwolf666	Verklemptomaniac wrote:
#255 DemoMonkey Sep 19, 2014 13:28:54	Point of order:   Something can be deliberate and working as intended, and still be bad design, as long as you make the assumption that designers are fallible.   Since the rules were not delivered to us by Mr Mearls speaking ex cathedra, I think we can safely make that assumption.   Carry on.
(Reply to #247) Diffan	Grifford wrote:
#257 ChrisCarlson Sep 19, 2014 14:21:34	DM: "After climbing the trecherous cliff, you come to a narrow chasm. From the looks of it, you might be able to jump it."   1) The fighter handles both these tasks with no problems.   2) The only reason your wizard magically overcomes them is because you are theroy-crafting in a white room, where you get to assume not only that you have both the spider climb and jump spells, but have them prepared. And the unused slots to cast them.   3) Even then, after all that fanciful pretending, it still cost you limited resources. Not the fighter.
#258 edwin_su Sep 19, 2014 14:37:57	DM12345 wrote:
(Reply to #257) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#260 Lawolf Sep 19, 2014 15:04:18	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #260) Diffan	Lawolf wrote:
#262 ClockworkNecktie Sep 19, 2014 16:16:17	DemoMonkey wrote:
#263 Lady_Auralla Sep 19, 2014 16:27:50	DemoMonkey wrote:
#264 ClockworkNecktie Sep 19, 2014 16:34:12	Lady_Auralla wrote:
#265 ChrisCarlson Sep 19, 2014 17:15:29	Diffan wrote:
#266 ChrisCarlson Sep 19, 2014 17:18:20	Lawolf wrote:
#267 Gatt Sep 19, 2014 17:19:40	Verklemptomaniac wrote:
(Reply to #265) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#269 ClockworkNecktie Sep 19, 2014 17:38:21	Gatt wrote:
#270 ChrisCarlson Sep 19, 2014 17:46:25	Diffan wrote:
#271 ClockworkNecktie Sep 19, 2014 18:02:13	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#272 ChrisCarlson Sep 19, 2014 18:13:19	ClockworkNecktie wrote:
(Reply to #267) Diffan	Gatt wrote:
(Reply to #270) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#275 ChrisCarlson Sep 19, 2014 18:17:40	Diffan wrote:
#276 ChrisCarlson Sep 19, 2014 18:22:56	Diffan wrote:
#277 ClockworkNecktie Sep 19, 2014 18:35:50	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#278 ChrisCarlson Sep 19, 2014 18:52:17	ClockworkNecktie wrote:
(Reply to #120) Vikingkingq	arnwolf666 wrote:
#280 ClockworkNecktie Sep 19, 2014 19:44:17	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #183) Vikingkingq	Grifford wrote:
(Reply to #275) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #279) arnwolf666	Vikingkingq wrote:
#284 Vikingkingq Sep 19, 2014 21:39:01	DemoMonkey wrote:
#285 Brock_Landers Sep 20, 2014 5:16:40	So, to sum up: Edition War.
(Reply to #285) Diffan	Brock_Landers wrote:
(Reply to #285) Orzel	Brock_Landers wrote:
(Reply to #287) arnwolf666	Orzel wrote:
(Reply to #288) Orzel	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #288) Diffan	arnwolf666 wrote:
#291 Uchawi Sep 20, 2014 7:11:38	What is missing is the core mechanic for martial characters to deliver ability, so you can have a rogue, battlemaster, monk, champion or barbarian share some common features that may be replaced with others similar to spells. That way you can multiple flavors for each class by choosing different abilities (defensive champion versus striker), share some ability and upgrade ability. As it stands every new addition to those classes beyond spells has to be another sub-system that is added.
#292 ChrisCarlson Sep 20, 2014 8:38:04	ClockworkNecktie wrote:
#293 Diffan Sep 20, 2014 10:03:00	So if/when I buy the PHB I should expect to find legendary maneuvers? Because my perusal of the book didn't mention any.
#294 ChrisCarlson Sep 20, 2014 11:40:00	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #294) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#296 ChrisCarlson Sep 20, 2014 13:33:43	Diffan wrote:
#297 Orzel Sep 20, 2014 13:38:52	The key is to allow Legendary Actions while remaining D&D.   Increased walk, run, jump, climb, and swim distances. Increased sight range Increased lie detection Increased intimidation of simple beings Increased troop morale     etc etc
#298 Zardnaar Sep 20, 2014 14:23:47	Design space is a bt limited on the current fighter so unless you had some way of high level fighters ditching extra attacks via some archtype in return for better "powers" you can't do much in that regard.    Would it be better to just have a new martial type character without the fighter label? Would that keep people happy because right now you would have to rewrite the class it seems and I do not see that happening anytime soon. Its not like the Battlemaster is actually a bad fighter, its probably the best one.
#299 draegn Sep 20, 2014 14:05:40	I agree with Zardnaar, there should be a new class or classes for mystic warriors. It would be easy for WotC to go back and take things from the ToB/Bo9S type sources and write the "Mystic Warrior" splatbook. They could have 7 Mystic warrior classes, one purely for each attribute and the mix and match guy.    Dragon 106 has 7 different paladins other than LG and CE as an example of how it could be done.
#300 ChrisCarlson Sep 20, 2014 14:22:03	draegn wrote:
#301 Tony_Vargas Sep 20, 2014 14:56:36	Zardnaar wrote:
#302 Zardnaar Sep 20, 2014 15:06:31	Tony_Vargas wrote:
(Reply to #298) Orzel	Zardnaar wrote:
(Reply to #296) Diffan	Diffan wrote:
#305 Tony_Vargas Sep 20, 2014 15:42:34	Zardnaar wrote:
(Reply to #298) Diffan	Zardnaar wrote:
#307 Zardnaar Sep 20, 2014 16:02:32	Diffan wrote:
#308 Tony_Vargas Sep 20, 2014 16:08:16	Zardnaar wrote:
#309 2Chlorobutanal Sep 20, 2014 17:00:11	I'm a bit concerned that some of the biggest proponents of revising the 5e Fighter/Battle Master admit to (and/or intimate) having very limited experience with the PHB or 5e in general.   Why not read the books, familiarize yourself with the adventuring and combat rules, play a 5e Fighter (or Ranger, or Paladin), possibly realizing that they can in fact perform "legendary maneuvers" using just the written rules, and then decide if it needs to be overhauled?   Although initially skeptical, this is basically what I did with 4e, except I didn't try to homebrew a 3.5 Fighter before giving it a chance.
#310 sleypy Sep 20, 2014 19:58:37	I would have liked if they had unified combat superiority dice with bardic inspiration dice. The mechanics are similar enough --some are nearly exact matches-- and would give both bard and battlemasters more utility.
#322 sleypy Sep 22, 2014 12:53:00	DemoMonkey wrote:
#362 DemoMonkey Sep 24, 2014 15:19:13	As I said upthread, have a Battlemaster ability that lets you add one of your dice to a Strength check. That's should cover the idea of "the Fighter is just better at Athletics than anyone else with the skill".
#363 Gatt Sep 24, 2014 15:53:22	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #363) 2Chlorobutanal	Gatt wrote:
#365 Brock_Landers Sep 24, 2014 22:46:07	Lawolf wrote:
#366 Mecheon Sep 25, 2014 3:06:12	Gatt wrote:
#367 draegn Sep 25, 2014 8:59:10	In my opinion something like this http://www.krigarenve.com/Krigarenve%20Handbook.pdf would be much better for fighters, rather, than the be a supernatural Nazgul or Jedi/Sith that Tome of Battle did.
#368 Lawolf Sep 25, 2014 9:02:34	draegn wrote:
#369 ChrisCarlson Sep 25, 2014 9:22:06	Lawolf wrote:
#370 Karnos Sep 25, 2014 9:25:37	Diffan wrote:
#371 draegn Sep 25, 2014 10:14:52	Lawolf?   Iron Heart -- Manticore Parry.... Isn't this the exact same thing as Jedi lightsaber deflection? Diamond Mind -- Emerald Razor.... Your character all of a sudden is a psionist (force user) on top of everything else. Stone Dragon -- Earthstrike Quake.... Take your weapon (which could be a dagger) and stab the ground everyone within 20' make a save or be knocked prone. This isn't supernatural? Tiger Claw -- Take your pick, you're now a mutant from the X-Men also these abilities from our point of view, are more appropriate for a barbarian. White Raven -- The precursor to the Warlord class for which there is more than enough posted. Though I would allow a class with these abilities due to it not having the ability to force another player to move his character against his  will.    All of these are meant for the Warblade.   Lawolf you have put a lot of effort into toning down the supernatural jedi/sith abilities of ToB for your Warblade document. However you have to overcome the legacy created by WotC. Do you really want something added to 5E from a game that "failed" and a game for which WotC lost the licensing to produce and market? From a business point of view it would seem wise to avoid this. Perhaps this is why the current fighter is as it is.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tome_of_Battle   Legacy[edit] A system similar to martial maneuvers is used for force powers in Star Wars Saga Edition. Elements of the Tome of Battle have been incorporated into the 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons; specifically the combat maneuvers. In addition, spellcasters get an upgrade in this regard too, gaining at will, encounter and daily spells that they can utilize so that a spellcaster will never be forced to pick up a weapon because he ran out of spells.[2]
#372 Brock_Landers Sep 25, 2014 10:22:25	draegn wrote:
(Reply to #361) Diffan	Grifford wrote:
(Reply to #362) Diffan	DemoMonkey wrote:
#375 Lawolf Sep 25, 2014 11:12:11	draegn wrote:
#376 Brock_Landers Sep 25, 2014 11:11:57	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #363) Diffan	Gatt wrote:
(Reply to #370) Diffan	Karnos wrote:
(Reply to #375) arnwolf666	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #363) Uchawi	Gatt wrote:
#381 Karnos Sep 25, 2014 16:03:16	Uchawi wrote:
#382 EnglishLanguage Sep 25, 2014 17:18:12	Brock_Landers wrote:
#383 2Chlorobutanal Sep 25, 2014 19:02:30	Toward the end of 3.5, I only used core books because the amount of bloat was staggering.  There was still plenty of optimization, and there were interesting concepts to be had, in just those 3 books.  Only one player (of the ~20 friends with which I regularly played 3.5e) ever took interest in the Tome of Battle.  Nobody really liked Psionics except my younger brother and myself, but I used it more as reading material and not as character-building fodder.
(Reply to #383) Diffan	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#385 ORC_Cricket Sep 25, 2014 19:55:52	We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct   Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.   Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.     Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
#386 Zardnaar Sep 25, 2014 20:14:06	EnglishLanguage wrote:
#387 Gatt Sep 25, 2014 20:25:17	Uchawi wrote:
#388 MechaPilot Sep 25, 2014 20:39:04	Gatt wrote:
(Reply to #383) arnwolf666	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#390 Brock_Landers Sep 26, 2014 4:59:11	EnglishLanguage wrote:
#391 Brock_Landers Sep 26, 2014 5:01:15	Gatt wrote:
(Reply to #386) Diffan	Zardnaar wrote:
#393 Vikingkingq Sep 26, 2014 8:11:30	Grifford wrote:
#394 Brock_Landers Sep 26, 2014 8:31:18	Vikingkingq wrote:
#395 ChrisCarlson Sep 26, 2014 8:37:43	Vikingkingq wrote:
(Reply to #394) Diffan	Brock_Landers wrote:
#397 Karnos Sep 26, 2014 12:12:23	Diffan wrote:
#398 Grifford Sep 26, 2014 14:26:53	Vikingkingq wrote:
#399 Orzel Sep 26, 2014 14:53:53	I think the real problem is that the "simple fighter" archetype is desired by many but many hate playing it because it only functions as a damage dealer past level 3. Much how I love rangers but the 4e ranger bored me to pieces. Personally I would have liked a "tutored knight" subclass to be a Jaime Lannister wannabe. One of the best warriors without magic and well above average skill at negotiation, warfare, and insight.
#400 Zardnaar Sep 26, 2014 17:21:00	Orzel wrote:
#401 Zardnaar Sep 26, 2014 17:29:39	Grifford wrote:
(Reply to #400) Orzel	Zardnaar wrote:
(Reply to #396) Uchawi	Diffan wrote:
#404 Grifford Sep 27, 2014 9:42:46	Zardnaar wrote:
#405 andypalmer Sep 27, 2014 20:55:17	Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
#406 MechaPilot Sep 27, 2014 21:05:10	It's always amazing to me to see people saying "that's not D&D," or "D&D is this" when the game has always lent itself to being molded into whatever was appropriate for each individual group playing it.
#407 Brock_Landers Sep 28, 2014 0:10:00	MechaPilot wrote:
(Reply to #335) arnwolf666	Lawolf wrote:
#409 Brock_Landers Sep 28, 2014 1:28:34	arnwolf666 wrote:
#410 Lawolf Sep 28, 2014 1:52:56	arnwolf666 wrote:
#411 Brock_Landers Sep 28, 2014 2:05:18	Lawolf wrote:
#412 ORC_Ragnar Sep 28, 2014 2:29:05	I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct   Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.   If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
#413 MechaPilot Sep 28, 2014 13:36:56	D&D intends for its rules and fluff to be modified to fit the tastes of the group playing it.  Therefore, what D&D is will rightly vary from group to group.
(Reply to #410) Diffan	Lawolf wrote:
#415 ORC_Koph Sep 28, 2014 17:36:02	I've removed content from this thread because edition warring is deemed to be forum disruption and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct     Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.   If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
(Reply to #414) 2Chlorobutanal	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #416) Diffan	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#418 andypalmer Sep 29, 2014 9:31:24	Diffan. Had this been presented as, "I'd like to get feedback on some ideas for modifying the Battlemaster for my home grown campaign" there would have been no negative backlash. Instead, many of these types of posts can come across as, "I don't like the RAW and would like to change it and here's why" - and those devolve into arguments between 1/2/3e and 4e fans. There is a lot of angst among 1/2/3e players that, despite the good start of 5e, there will be more and more 4e creeping in - that tends to result in a knee jerk reaction on our part when these types of discussions are started, without having that clear qualifying statement.   I'm am all for members of the community getting together to brainstorm solutions for problems in homebrew campaigns. I think it would helpful, for all, if threads are intended in such a manner, it was clearly stated.
#419 MechaPilot Sep 29, 2014 12:48:14	andypalmer wrote:
(Reply to #418) Diffan	andypalmer wrote:
#421 Grifford Sep 29, 2014 14:18:26	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #421) arnwolf666	Grifford wrote:
(Reply to #421) Diffan	Grifford wrote:
(Reply to #413) arnwolf666	MechaPilot wrote:
#425 MechaPilot Sep 29, 2014 21:04:45	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #425) arnwolf666	MechaPilot wrote:
#427 MechaPilot Sep 29, 2014 21:15:24	arnwolf666 wrote:
#428 Tony_Vargas Sep 29, 2014 21:22:02	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #427) arnwolf666	MechaPilot wrote:
#430 MechaPilot Sep 29, 2014 21:38:55	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #430) arnwolf666	MechaPilot wrote:
#432 Tony_Vargas Sep 29, 2014 22:30:35	MechaPilot wrote:
(Reply to #417) 2Chlorobutanal	Diffan wrote:
#434 andypalmer Sep 30, 2014 4:15:12	To me, DnD is about the following mechanics:  - combat is the simple task of rolling to hit against a target number, rolling damage if you hit that target number, and that damage coming off your opponent's hit points  - vancian magic system   I say this having played over 2 dozen other RPGs, many of which also the same fantasy flavor that DnD has (orcs, goblins, trolls, etc.). i.e., when you play many RPGs, you associate RPGs with their mechanics, not their flavor or background.   5e has returned to the core combat mechanics and while unlimited cantrips and the more flexible spell slot system may seem an escape from the vancian magic system, at its core, it has maintained the use of limited, distinct spell slots as "ammunition" for spells.   I've discussed the above with many gamers over the last five years and believe strongly that 5e returning to those core mechanics is the key to its success. Those mechanics differentiate DnD from other RPGs.
(Reply to #434) arnwolf666	andypalmer wrote:
(Reply to #433) Diffan	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#437 Grifford Sep 30, 2014 11:36:15	Diffan wrote:
#438 sleypy Sep 30, 2014 13:13:27	andypalmer wrote:
(Reply to #437) Diffan	Grifford wrote:
(Reply to #441) 2Chlorobutanal	MechaPilot wrote:
#444 Tony_Vargas Sep 30, 2014 22:37:16	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#445 MechaPilot Sep 30, 2014 22:38:50	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#446 Lawolf Sep 30, 2014 22:41:12	While I definitely don't want to go down the slope of more numbers being piled on, I don't actually think it would harm balance since those numbers don't apply to combat and you can't really do anything with a high Athletics or Strength check anyway.    Sure with expertise and and a further +3 you can get a +20 Athletics check, but what does that do for you? Nothing extraordinary really.
#447 MechaPilot Sep 30, 2014 22:42:51	Lawolf wrote:
#448 Lawolf Sep 30, 2014 22:50:48	MechaPilot wrote:
#449 MechaPilot Sep 30, 2014 22:54:08	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #445) 2Chlorobutanal	MechaPilot wrote:
(Reply to #450) Diffan	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#452 Karnos Oct 01, 2014 12:32:46	Diffan wrote:
#453 2Chlorobutanal Oct 01, 2014 19:15:55	Minor tangent:  Remarkable Athlete, in its default incarnation, does not help saving throws.   Saving throws are not ability checks.
#454 sleypy Oct 01, 2014 19:56:00	Lawolf wrote:
#482 Lawolf Oct 03, 2014 14:40:22	DaveDash wrote:
#483 DaveDash Oct 03, 2014 15:03:34	Battlemaster manoeuvres DO scale with level. Their DCs get higher and their damage increases. They also have more dice and can do more with a single hit. Advantage, fear, trip for example in one hit adding 3d10 or 3d12 damage. Seems like scaling to me. You were complaining that Fear is too powerful at high levels in the "saves are broken at high levels" thread. Guess what, a high level Battlemaster can "cast" DC19 fear 6 times per short rest. That also isn't resisted like normal spells. That single ability can turn the tide of an entire battle.
#484 Lawolf Oct 03, 2014 15:13:09	DaveDash wrote:
#485 DaveDash Oct 03, 2014 15:28:33	6 times per short rest is MUCH greater than 12 times per day, AND most monsters at higher level have advantage on save vs spells. No such advantage against the Battlemaster. You have 3-4 attacks per round at +11 attack bonus (double if you action surge), you dont miss, and you can chose to use feinting attack before menacing strike if you're that worried. Not only that the reality of the situation is the Paladin needs to ration out his spells vs healing, damage, utility, smiting, and divine smite. The BM fighter has no such concerns. My source is from playing high level combats, and a Paladin in a campaign. What's your source? Also if you want to play a Fighter with more abilities just multiclass. I just ran a Ftr11/Sorc6 ranged specialist and it rocked.
#486 MechaPilot Oct 03, 2014 15:31:13	DaveDash wrote:
#487 Lawolf Oct 03, 2014 15:37:07	DaveDash wrote:
#488 DaveDash Oct 03, 2014 15:49:25	Given when you have action surge fighters in the party, combats only last 2-3 rounds, 1 minute of fear is wasted. Running through my campaign 1-2 short rests is the norm. Paladins are some of the best single target melee fighters in the game, but against ranged or flying they are pretty useless. Battlemaster has tons of utility to help the group out (commanders strike, etc) when fighting flying creatures, or be quite effective with a bow himself. Menacing strike can fear with a bow. Meanwhile the Paladin is basically standing around acting as a cuddle puddle magnet for the other PCs due to his save aura.
#489 Lawolf Oct 03, 2014 15:58:31	DaveDash wrote:
#490 DaveDash Oct 03, 2014 16:08:01	The Fighter11/Sorc6 I made rips through high level flying monsters with a Longbow, Action Surge, Sharpshooter, and quickened Elemental Weapon (or haste if no DR). (Not really a battlemaster at all though, so a bit off topic).
#491 Lawolf Oct 03, 2014 16:11:39	DaveDash wrote:
#492 ChrisCarlson Oct 03, 2014 16:17:33	Lawolf wrote:
#493 Grifford Oct 03, 2014 16:26:53	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#494 Lawolf Oct 03, 2014 16:50:17	Grifford wrote:
#495 Karnos Oct 03, 2014 16:53:50	Lawolf wrote:
#496 Lawolf Oct 03, 2014 17:05:33	Karnos wrote:
#497 Karnos Oct 03, 2014 17:08:26	If only there was some sort of ranged weapons that could benefit from Strength instead of Dex.  Like, a throwing axe or a javelin or something.
#498 DaveDash Oct 03, 2014 17:15:49	Battlemasters make decent ranged attackers too (Dex based Ftrs) given the synergy between Precision Strike and Sharpshooter.
#499 Lawolf Oct 03, 2014 17:43:44	Karnos wrote:
#500 ChrisCarlson Oct 03, 2014 18:57:39	Lawolf wrote:
#501 ChrisCarlson Oct 03, 2014 18:58:52	Lawolf wrote:
#502 Grifford Oct 03, 2014 19:08:06	Lawolf wrote:
#503 Lawolf Oct 03, 2014 19:39:19	Grifford wrote:
#504 ChrisCarlson Oct 04, 2014 10:16:10	Lawolf wrote:
#505 Grifford Oct 04, 2014 12:53:28	Lawolf wrote: