5E Fighter EK and BM: Basics

[CyberThread]

Hi, I am your local thread creator today and have taken up the mantle of doing the very basics and skeleton for the Fighter Sub-Class, to help show off a bit of what mechanics are at play for the class. The free ruleset already has fighters/champion archetype so will not be posting data on them.

Fighter Sub-Classes




Sub-Classes


Now the Major Sub Class decisions: Martial Archtypes

You gain access to 3 of these, and each of the two gain very different play styles. The choices you have are , Champion , Battle Master, and Eldritch Knight

Battle Master

Maneuvers: You learn to do stuff!

Superiority dice: Usable extra damage dice 4d8's per short/long rest, goes up as you level

Student of War: can use an extra artisan tool set of your choice

know your enemy: Learn if someone is stronger, equal or weaker then yourself ;using a bunch of meta-info .

Improved Combat Superiority: More damage dice from d8 now too d12

Relentlessness: Gain a superiority dice if you run out once during each combat.



Eldritch Knight :

Magic: Arcane Casting , No Rituals, of the Abjuration and Evocation Wizard list. Slower spell progression then paladin or ranger.

Weapon Bond: Cannot be disarmed, summon weapon in your palm.

War Magic: Cast Cantrip , then make one weapon attack as bonus action.

Eldritch Strike: Hit someone round 1, foe you hit has disadvantage if you cast a spell on them round 2

Arcane Charge: Teleport 30 feet as an extra effect when you use action surge.

Improved War Magic: When cast magic, you can use bonus action to attack once.





Maneuvers:


Commanders Strike:Miss one of your own attacks, have a friendly creature attack once.

Disarming Attack: Once you hit a target, the next attack against it not by you will have advantage.

Evasive Footwork: Roll superiority dice , while moving the result is added to your AC

Feinting Attack: Feint target on bonus round, on the next round afterwards gain advantage on attack roll.

Goading Attack: Target has disadvantage on all attacks against targets others hten you until the end of your next turn.

Lunging Attack: Gain an extra 5ft of reach

Maneuvering Attack: Add damage to your attack , ally can move up to half its speed without provoking opportunity attacks.

Menacing Attack: Target is frightened after you attack it

Parry: Use reaction and dice roll to reduce damage by roll result + dex.

Precision Attack: Dice Roll results are added to attack roll.

Pushing Attack: Attempt to push a creature back after an attack by 15ft.

Rally: Target gains temp hp

Riposte: When a creature misses you , make a return attack

Sweeping Attack: If you hit one creature, cleave hit another creature within 5ft reach.

Trip Attack: Knock a target prone when you hit it with a attack

[rlc]

i'm actually really interested in the eldritch knight now. this summoned weapon thing, does it mean that you don't need to own a weapon, or is it more of a summon it from your scabbard thing? if the first, are there different levels of weapon summoning, or do you just start with whatever weapon you want?

[CyberThread]

It just a favored weapon that you own and then bind to yourself, other then unable to be disarmed and able to summon in your hand, it is not as strong as the warlocks verison which is also considered magical and can't be destoryed by non magic damage types.

[Madfellow]

I don't have the PHB, but based on his description it sounds like you "bond" yourself to a weapon you own and at any time you can summon it to your hand.

Edit: Ninja'd

[Morty]

Well, bugger. The manoeuvres look exactly as unimpressive as we were led to believe. I kind of hoped that they would change since that Legends & Lore article.

[CyberThread]

They let you do extra damage, if you hit attempt something extra, or allow others to hit... They arn't the best but good enough for a non-magical fighter. Add these with the boatload of feats you can gain access too, I think it allows for a very strong fighter archtype, including having tons of feats to waste on things to grant you a very strong skeleton to work with .

[Cibulan]

Well, bugger. The manoeuvres look exactly as unimpressive as we were led to believe. I kind of hoped that they would change since that Legends & Lore article.
They looked fine to me. I kind of want to try a dex based finesse fighter with those maneuvers. Rapier, parry, riposte, etc. I always liked the duelist prestige class as a concept but it didn't work out in practice but now you can make one with just the base class!

[Madfellow]

They looked fine to me. I kind of want to try a dex based finesse fighter with those maneuvers. Rapier, parry, riposte, etc. I always liked the duelist prestige class as a concept but it didn't work out in practice but now you can make one with just the base class!

To quote a friend of mine, "Dang it 5th, stop making it Christmas all the time!"

[Morty]

They looked fine to me. I kind of want to try a dex based finesse fighter with those maneuvers. Rapier, parry, riposte, etc. I always liked the duelist prestige class as a concept but it didn't work out in practice but now you can make one with just the base class!

They are perfectly fine, they just shouldn't take a sub-class to even be able to pick a couple of them from a list. Some of them I could see as low-level special abilities, but others should be available to any fighter. And the lack of high-level options is disappointing. Being able to make a duellist isn't anything special, even if D&D has always failed at it.

[wolfstone]

I don't have the PHB, but based on his description it sounds like you "bond" yourself to a weapon you own and at any time you can summon it to your hand.

Edit: Ninja'd

Sounds like a retooling of the Swordmage class from 4e.

[Dienekes]

They are perfectly fine, they just shouldn't take a sub-class to even be able to pick a couple of them from a list. Some of them I could see as low-level special abilities, but others should be available to any fighter. And the lack of high-level options is disappointing. Being able to make a duellist isn't anything special, even if D&D has always failed at it.

Yeah, if I had to sum it up it'd be "not as bad as I feared, nor as good as I hoped."

They're ok. Most of them seem to be comparative to 3.5 or pathfinder feats from levels 1-6. No prerequisites, which is nice, but a limited number per encounter which is less nice. A couple add some interesting options to mimic a 4e warlord, but how effective it is depends on numbers. So, yeah, a solid ok.

[oxybe]

Is a 5th level EK a 5th level caster (IE: caster level = character level) or a 3rd level one (seeing as he's only been casting spells for levels 3, 4 & 5) or 2nd level caster (half his fighter level, rounded down, akin to I remember hearing mentioned about the multiclassing spellcaster rules).

I'm asking this as various cantrips I've seen presented mention having a damage increase based off your caster level, rather then character level or spell slot used (as cantrips don't use slots proper).

[Sartharina]

They remind me more of low-level TOB Maneuvers like Steel Wind, Exorcism of Steel, Disarming Strike, and a few Setting Sun maneuvers.

Unfortunately... why is Parry SD+DEX instead of SD+Strength?

[Cibulan]

Unfortunately... why is Parry SD+DEX instead of SD+Strength?Two guesses. One, to model reaction time and coordination of the parry. It doesn't take all that much strength to parry because you are typically just redirecting the opponent's cut/thrust and not stopping it cold but it does take hand-eye coordination and timing. Two, to facilitate the duelist (dex fighter) archetype fighter (like Inigo Montoya) who parry, ripostes, dodges, etc.

[Yorrin]

Is a 5th level EK a 5th level caster (IE: caster level = character level) or a 3rd level one (seeing as he's only been casting spells for levels 3, 4 & 5) or 2nd level caster (half his fighter level, rounded down, akin to I remember hearing mentioned about the multiclassing spellcaster rules).

I'm asking this as various cantrips I've seen presented mention having a damage increase based off your caster level, rather then character level or spell slot used (as cantrips don't use slots proper).

Which cantrips are you talking about? Because the ones I'm looking at refer to "level" rather than "caster level," which implies character level to me.

[CyberThread]

Which cantrips are you talking about? Because the ones I'm looking at refer to "level" rather than "caster level," which implies character level to me.

Hey yorrin can you do the last two sub schools for the wizard, right now trying to finish up some stuff for the paladin.

[Lord Raziere]

Hrm. Only Abjuration and Evocation for Eldritch Knight? thats disappointing. I have such a great idea for a divination detective warrior guy, who uses divination magic to solve crimes then force of arms to punish the guy responsible.

[Morty]

Yeah, if I had to sum it up it'd be "not as bad as I feared, nor as good as I hoped."

They're ok. Most of them seem to be comparative to 3.5 or pathfinder feats from levels 1-6. No prerequisites, which is nice, but a limited number per encounter which is less nice. A couple add some interesting options to mimic a 4e warlord, but how effective it is depends on numbers. So, yeah, a solid ok.

My judgement is less favourable. I'd say they're not bad, and they could probably be worse. WotC has proven extremely creative in the past when it came to giving warriors illusory options. But they're still rather uninspired and feel as though they were written under the impression fighters don't advance past level six. They would be solid if things like parry, precise attack, pushing and lunging were made widely available and the rest were only the low-level list, with more impressive moves being available. I suppose my reaction can be best summed up as "Is that seriously the best they can do?".

As far as parrying being based on Dexterity goes, it seems that it's slowly and painfully dawning on WotC that melee combat does, in fact, require manual dexterity as much as it requires strength. And it doesn't look like Parry requires you to be wielding a weapon with a finesse tag, even.

[T.G. Oskar]

Joining the chorus of "they're average". Maneuvers, I mean.

Part of this is the SaGa fanboy in me talking (and the good experience with Martial Adepts), but when I saw "maneuvers" I expected good things. As it stands, they're nice, but nothing truly exceptional compared to what Eldritch Knight brings to the table (limited but solid spellcasting potential, expected of a gish). Most of them are of the lines of "you hit, you add X effect", but after playing the AGE system and their concept of Stunts, I feel this could have been done better (and apply to every Martial character; you have proficiency with Martial weapons, you get these maneuvers to play with).

However, they're not so bad when you think about it. Goading Attack is a clever tanking maneuver, particularly if the opponent has difficulties beating the ally's AC (which should be easy to do given that you could reach AC 18 quick enough); Menacing Attack adds the Frightened condition (for when you want the target to disengage from you, and also a solid debuff, great for Lockdown builds), Sweeping Attack is what Cleave should have been (and what it is to an extent in PF) and Trip Attack makes the opponent go Prone, which has improved to become a sweet debuff. Commander's Strike, Maneuvering Attack and Rally are interesting buffs (make me think of White Raven, honestly), while Parry and Riposte work on the defensive. It has a balanced mix of offense, defense, buffs and debuffs, meaning the Fighter can do quite a bit in combat.

One thing that's not so clear: are Maneuvers separate actions, or rider effects with an attack? As in, does executing a Maneuver takes up your whole action, or does it apply to at least one attack in your routine? The former would be horrible, while the latter adds some incredible flexibility to the build.

As for Eldritch Knight...I thought War Magic would work differently (make an attack, cast cantrip as bonus action), but this one is still nice enough. Arcane Charge is rightly hilarious, though: up to 2/short rest, you can teleport. Sure, not as much as, say, a Wizard with Dimension Door (or a Warlock, actually, using an at-will invocation that can pull it off), but it's a nice ability to have. It only activates on an Action Surge, though, which makes me question whether it replaces your movement or if it adds to your movement (thus, on an Action Surge, you have your movement + the 30 ft. of movement worth of teleportation). The spell list is interesting, though: even if it's two schools only, there's lots of interesting choices (Light, Dispel Magic, Stoneskin, Protection from Energy, Darkness; HotDQ probably adds Sending, Shatter, Wall of Fire, maybe Daylight, and Counterspell). Even the attack spells are interesting enough (does Chromatic Orb count as a Wizard spell? That could be a good catch-all 1st level spell). Sad to see no Transmutation, though, which has some of the nicest buffs (like, say, Magic Weapon?) In any case, it's a pretty solid subclass, probably more solid than you may think, with an interesting balance between offense (through spells and multiple attacks) and defense (through abjurations), with some utility thrown in (nearly all the spells I mentioned as interesting choices).

[Dienekes]

Two guesses. One, to model reaction time and coordination of the parry. It doesn't take all that much strength to parry because you are typically just redirecting the opponent's cut/thrust and not stopping it cold but it does take hand-eye coordination and timing. Two, to facilitate the duelist (dex fighter) archetype fighter (like Inigo Montoya) who parry, ripostes, dodges, etc.

Ehh, parrying is something done by just about every melee weapon based martial art except maybe knives.* Really, many of the attacks of two handed swords are designed specifically to make attacks that also work as parries and vice versa, and though I am less familiar with them, I would not be surprised if the same is true for pole-weapons and mass weapons.

I'd probably houserule to be either Dex or Str myself.

*unless they're parrying daggers used specifically to defend against larger weapons. I just have never seen a knife fight devolve into parrying the opposing knife. They're much more about dodging and grappling. Of course, I've never seen an old fechtbuch or manual on specifically knife vs knife fighting so I may be talking completely out of my ass on this one.

[Morty]

Yes, of all the things on that list which shouldn't take character-building resources to use, Parry might be the biggest offender.

[1of3]

Hrm. Only Abjuration and Evocation for Eldritch Knight? thats disappointing. I have such a great idea for a divination detective warrior guy, who uses divination magic to solve crimes then force of arms to punish the guy responsible.

You might be better of with bard. They can be competent in melee. You can also get non bard spells for more divination.

[Lord Raziere]

You might be better of with bard. They can be competent in melee. You can also get non bard spells for more divination.

but I don't want my detective to have the ability to sing. not even as an extraneous class feature.

[oxybe]

Ray of frost, for example, but i might just be remembering one of the playtest documents where this went unanswered to me.

[Sartharina]

Two guesses. One, to model reaction time and coordination of the parry. It doesn't take all that much strength to parry because you are typically just redirecting the opponent's cut/thrust and not stopping it cold but it does take hand-eye coordination and timing. Two, to facilitate the duelist (dex fighter) archetype fighter (like Inigo Montoya) who parry, ripostes, dodges, etc.

It does require strength to parry, as you need explosive force to actually redirect a blow. As it is, DEX-based combat has too much support in 5e.

[Dienekes]

It does require strength to parry, as you need explosive force to actually redirect a blow. As it is, DEX-based combat has too much support in 5e.

Ehh the exact distinction between Dex and Str has always been sketchy in 3.5. Honestly, depending on the weapon used explosive force to bring the weapon into position or the fine tuned flick to deflect a blade both work, and often both will need to be employed for weapons classically seen as strength based and Dex based.

[rlc]

i was expecting so much more.

[Lokiare]

The Battle Master fighter is so awesome. It met all my expectations, no it exceeded them. Its the best class in the game. Look it can even use trip to keep the wizard's damage from outshining it. It so awesome!

[Yorrin]

Hey yorrin can you do the last two sub schools for the wizard, right now trying to finish up some stuff for the paladin.

If I had the book I'd be glad to. Unfortunately I dont have the actual text in front of me, I've just been following very closely on all the various forums. My copy doesn't arrive for at least a week and a half.


Ray of frost, for example, but i might just be remembering one of the playtest documents where this went unanswered to me.

Ray of Frost, as per the Basic PDF, just cares about character level.

[Cibulan]

It does require strength to parry, as you need explosive force to actually redirect a blow. As it is, DEX-based combat has too much support in 5e.


Ehh the exact distinction between Dex and Str has always been sketchy in 3.5. Honestly, depending on the weapon used explosive force to bring the weapon into position or the fine tuned flick to deflect a blade both work, and often both will need to be employed for weapons classically seen as strength based and Dex based.
It does require some strength but it is not a brute force action. I sabre fence and I'm much better at parrying than my much larger and stronger friend. As someone else said, it should probably have been written to say strength or dexterity plus die.

[oxybe]

Ray of Frost, as per the Basic PDF, just cares about character level.

That's good. For some reason it never struck me to check the Basic PDF if this had changed. Good to know, thanks!

[Dienekes]

It does require some strength but it is not a brute force action. I sabre fence and I'm much better at parrying than my much larger and stronger friend. As someone else said, it should probably have been written to say strength or dexterity plus die.

And I longsword and can parry my rather more nimble friend 9 times out of 10. Just about nothing in swordsmanship is a brute force action except the over embellished hacking that has been a steady misconception on how medieval weapons were used for years. Strength only makes sense when being used for swordsmanship as explosive force. Or the ability to get your arm from point a to point b as quicky and sturdily as you can. This is very useful for parrying and attacking. Which isn't to say manual dexterity is not also hugely important. They're both required to do just about anything combat related, and in my experience are both a far secondary aspect of fighting than plain skill, but that's neither here nor there.

Honestly, when you sit and think about how the attributes and what they apply to are divided they make little sense. Take tumble or acrobatics. Doing those stunts takes an exceptional amount of core strength. Balance is also weird as, as far as I can tell, it's entirely unrelated to the division between strength and dexterity. Then we get to archery, and let me tell you that is all strength and endurance. Aiming it is the skill you learn but to actually use a longbow you gotta be able to draw a 180 lb weight over your shoulder and then hold it there until you get your shot off.

[Cibulan]

And I longsword and can parry my rather more nimble friend 9 times out of 10. Just about nothing in swordsmanship is a brute force action except the over embellished hacking that has been a steady misconception on how medieval weapons were used for years. Strength only makes sense when being used for swordsmanship as explosive force. Or the ability to get your arm from point a to point b as quicky and sturdily as you can. This is very useful for parrying and attacking. Which isn't to say manual dexterity is not also hugely important. They're both required to do just about anything combat related, and in my experience are both a far secondary aspect of fighting than plain skill, but that's neither here nor there.

Honestly, when you sit and think about how the attributes and what they apply to are divided they make little sense. Take tumble or acrobatics. Doing those stunts takes an exceptional amount of core strength. Balance is also weird as, as far as I can tell, it's entirely unrelated to the division between strength and dexterity. Then we get to archery, and let me tell you that is all strength and endurance. Aiming it is the skill you learn but to actually use a longbow you gotta be able to draw a 180 lb weight over your shoulder and then hold it there until you get your shot off.Preaching to the choir my friend :smallwink:. But the distinction is made in this game system.

[HorridElemental]

Got to glance over at a friend's PHB, one thing good that comes from the EKF is that we can start homebrewing appropriate maneuvers.

[Jigawatts]

The Battle Master fighter is so awesome. It met all my expectations, no it exceeded them. Its the best class in the game. Look it can even use trip to keep the wizard's damage from outshining it. It so awesome!
Ugh. How was this at all constructive to the discussion? All you seem to do is troll the 5E forum lately. Go hug your 4E books or something.

[1of3]

Click his profile. Press "Ignore User". Confirm. Feel relieved.

[Falka]

Maybe the names aren't the best (a bit dull for what you expect with this subclass: it's supposed to be an expert strategist), but I already thought you could "parry" as a basic maneuver (I take parrying as a Total Defense action, you focus on parrying in your turn and deflecting attacks). The BM would know how to do this in an advanced fashion and prepare a counter-attack as he has advanced training.

That's how I depicted it in my mind, at least.

He feels pretty much like a mixture of many things: Warlord, possible duelist (yet Bard is a stronger candidate if you want to play the cheesy Dashing Swordsman) and (what saddens me the most as I thought the Ranger would fill this niche role) a guerilla-styled fighter.

[Muenster Man]

Could anyone tell me how many maneuvers a BM gets? A lot of them could make for a fun build, but if you're only getting a couple over 20 levels, I'd rather just take Martial Adept and pick my favorite 2

[MadBear]

Upon reading Commanding Strike, it seems like foregoing one of my attacks to give a rogue another chance at sneak attack is almost always worth it. That alone seems pretty awesome atm. If you can combine that with another maneuver, you could have a turn where you:

move to angry caster use maneuvering strike (to bring the rogue in close, I think I'm reading that right), then commanding strike to allow the rogue to hit them with a big damage attack. And heck, if you had a 3rd attack, you just add in trip to give the rogue advantage as well.

[Person_Man]

My overall take on the Fighter is that it contains a lot of excellent ideas that were poorly implemented and/or given too late in its progression to be useful:

Base Abilities: Action Surge and Second Wind are awesome (and Indomitable slightly less so - its basically a weaker version of Advantage on Saves), but limited by Short Rest. So if your DM limits Rests in order to limit the resources of spellcasters, you'll rarely use them. If your DM is liberal with Rests, then spellcasters get back way more resources then you do each time. More Ability Score Improvements/Feats are nice, but Feats don't have level based prereqs and don't scale, thus getting more of them at mid-higher levels isn't helpful. (You're basically getting your choice of 4th level Abilities at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th levels). Extra Attack and the minor bonuses from Fighting Style gives you reliable damage output, but well below the damage output of most spells.

Champion: The "simple" Fighter is also the weakest, by far. Improved Critical/Superior abilities add very marginal average damage per round, Remarkable Athlete (minor Skill bonuses) is a joke, and the "Fast Healing" when below 50% hit points from Survivor come way too late to be useful, because by 18th level everything is resolved in 1-2ish rounds of rocket tag.

Eldritch Knight: Will probably share the fate of the 5E Paladin - very useful/potent at low levels, and increasingly less so at higher levels when their spell progression falls way behind full casters. Can't be Disarmed ability from Weapon Bond ability is highly situational. Cantrip with your Action + 1 attack with your Bonus Action from War Magic will usually be less effective then just making 3 or 4 normal Attacks with your Extra Attack and/or TWF and/or Bonus Action attacks from Feats. Impose Disadvantage on the next round from Eldritch Strike is a joke because virtually every other status condition in the game grants Advantage or imposes Disadvatage immediately. Teleport 30 feet in addition to your normal Action when you use Action Surge would be a big deal in 3.5 or 4E but is virtually meaningless in 5E where default movement whenever you want during your turn and "nobody really knows where people are standing in the theater of the mind" makes your position on the battlefield mostly meaningless. Cast a spell as your Action + 1 attack as your Bonus Action would be very handy as a 3rd level Duskblade/Magus-like ability, but is a marginal benefit when its gained at 18th level.

Battle Master: Will probably end up being the default optimal choice for Fighters. Gaining a large number of Maneuvers at low levels makes the Fighter much more flexible and useful. The usefulness of the bonus damage from Superiority Dice and its Improved version will depend on the math of how well it scales - feels like a nice way to go nova on 1 enemy once every Short/Long Rest, but might suck if it scales poorly (starts at an average of +18 damage to one attack, which is useful at 7th level, but not much beyond then). Extra Tool from Student of War and is a joke. Metagame info from Know Your Enemy on other creatures would be very useful at low levels (especially for new players) but is mostly useless for any experienced player who has read the Monster Manual. 1 die of Superiority damage when you have 0 from Relentless Ability would be very useful at low levels, but is a joke when its gained at 18th level.

[hawklost]

Upon reading Commanding Strike, it seems like foregoing one of my attacks to give a rogue another chance at sneak attack is almost always worth it. That alone seems pretty awesome atm. If you can combine that with another maneuver, you could have a turn where you:

move to angry caster use maneuvering strike (to bring the rogue in close, I think I'm reading that right), then commanding strike to allow the rogue to hit them with a big damage attack. And heck, if you had a 3rd attack, you just add in trip to give the rogue advantage as well.

Not sure why you would give your Rogue more Sneak Attack, the ability specifically states "Once Per Turn" in its description. So Rogues don't get to Sneak Attack every time they attack during a turn but only Once.

EDIT: Now, if the Rogue attacked and missed on his normal turn, then it would make sense to try to give him another chance to get Sneak Attack.

[HorridElemental]

Not sure why you would give your Rogue more Sneak Attack, the ability specifically states "Once Per Turn" in its description. So Rogues don't get to Sneak Attack every time they attack during a turn but only Once.

EDIT: Now, if the Rogue attacked and missed on his normal turn, then it would make sense to try to give him another chance to get Sneak Attack.

I believe this is how it worked in 4e, the warlord (me) would go after the rogue and change tactics depending if SA went off or not.

[Human Paragon 3]

Base Abilities: So if your DM limits Rests in order to limit the resources of spellcasters, you'll rarely use them. If your DM is liberal with Rests, then spellcasters get back way more resources then you do each time.

Wizards only get back 1 spell slot per short rest. Getting back action surge and second wind seems better than that to me.


by 18th level everything is resolved in 1-2ish rounds of rocket tag.

Citation needed? Show your work? It seems like designers took care to make sure that this does not happen any longer compared to 3.5.

[MadBear]

Not sure why you would give your Rogue more Sneak Attack, the ability specifically states "Once Per Turn" in its description. So Rogues don't get to Sneak Attack every time they attack during a turn but only Once.

EDIT: Now, if the Rogue attacked and missed on his normal turn, then it would make sense to try to give him another chance to get Sneak Attack.

maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the rules state:



The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.

So a round is composed of everyone's turn, while a turn is just a single characters actions. with that said, if the rogue sneak attacked on his turn, would it not be a separate turn when he uses a sneak attack on the fighters turn, since it says once per turn, and not once per round?

maybe I'm just being to pedantic with the rules.

[hawklost]

maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the rules state:



So a round is composed of everyone's turn, while a turn is just a single characters actions. with that said, if the rogue sneak attacked on his turn, would it not be a separate turn when he uses a sneak attack on the fighters turn, since it says once per turn, and not once per round?

maybe I'm just being to pedantic with the rules.

Yes, a Round is composed of everyone's turn, but the Rogues Turn does take up the whole round of 6 seconds. Its not like a Rogue fighting Boar takes 3 seconds for the Rogue and 3 seconds for the boar for the Round while a Rogue + 9 Friends vs a Boar + 9 friends only take up .3 seconds of a Round for their turn. Or rogue + 99 friends taking up only .03 seconds of a Round, that is patently ridiculous thinking.

[HorridElemental]

Over at RPG.net I ran across this...

"Marshall Marshall is offline
Registered User
Validated User
Join Date
Mar 2010
Posts
39
Re: [5e] Early release PHB warrior stuff
It takes two rule changes and a drastic fix to maneuvers to make the BM playable.

1. Remove the "One expertise die per turn" rule.

2. Allow the BM to trade-in his extra attacks for expertise dice. Usually not a good trade damage wise but mega versatile. Effectively you go from 5 1[W] attacks to one 5[W] attack w/riders. I'd also suggest the actual die size be the [W] die, but it's not necessary. This also lets the "Warlord" act like a Warlord by granting attacks to the whole team each turn.

3. Better maneuvers that scale with extra dice, Better maneuvers that cost multiple dice AND Better maneuvers with level prereqs. Ya know, like higher level Invocations.

It also occurs to me that Commanders Strike is not just for Rogues, its for any of the classes that pile their whole turns damage into one attack. I'm thinking the 5 die Cantrips here specifically...."

I think, from the small glances I've seen, that at least 1 and 2 could really help the battle master archetype a lot.

But you all with the book may be a better judge of that.

[MadBear]

Yes, a Round is composed of everyone's turn, but the Rogues Turn does take up the whole round of 6 seconds. Its not like a Rogue fighting Boar takes 3 seconds for the Rogue and 3 seconds for the boar for the Round while a Rogue + 9 Friends vs a Boar + 9 friends only take up .3 seconds of a Round for their turn. Or rogue + 99 friends taking up only .03 seconds of a Round, that is patently ridiculous thinking.

.... that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not in any way suggesting that the turns are broken up the way you described. The rogues turn takes up the whole 6 seconds, sure. However, when the fighter gives him an attack, that is not taking place during the rogues turn, it's taking place during the fighters. For an easy comparison of what I'm saying, there are many board games where some actions happen during players turns, and other actions that take place during the round.

edit: To clarify when I say it's taking place during the fighters turn, while I acknowledge that each person turn takes up the entire 6 seconds that compose a round, I'm merely saying that turns are discrete things. The fighters turn is not the rogues turn, even if they take place during the same time.

[hawklost]

.... that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not in any way suggesting that the turns are broken up the way you described. The rogues turn takes up the whole 6 seconds, sure. However, when the fighter gives him an attack, that is not taking place during the rogues turn, it's taking place during the fighters. For an easy comparison of what I'm saying, there are many board games where some actions happen during players turns, and other actions that take place during the round.

edit: To clarify when I say it's taking place during the fighters turn, while I acknowledge that each person turn takes up the entire 6 seconds that compose a round, I'm merely saying that turns are discrete things. The fighters turn is not the rogues turn, even if they take place during the same time.

Since I do not have the book with me at this moment, can you tell me if the Maneuver uses the Rogues Reaction?

[1of3]

The Rogue can SA again on other character's turn. This includes Opportunity Attacks and the attacks granted by a Battlemaster. Every character gets their own turn.

[MadBear]

Since I do not have the book with me at this moment, can you tell me if the Maneuver uses the Rogues Reaction?

I'm only basing this off of what I read at the beginning of this thread. What I'm saying could change depending on the actual wording of the BM.

[hawklost]

The Rogue can SA again on other character's turn. This includes Opportunity Attacks and the attacks granted by a Battlemaster. Every character gets their own turn.

So you are promoting scenarios like this

Rogue (Assassin) and Fighter (Battle Master) both get surprise on an enemy
Rogue goes first and uses Assassinate with Raper doing (2d8 + 20d6) + 5 damage with a possibility of a x2 on that over meaning about 84-168 damage with Rogue attack.
Next Battle Master uses Commanding attack to give Rogue another attack
Rogue repeats the 84-168 damage for a range between 168 to 336 damage from the Rogue alone on a Surprise round.

Congratulations, you have just defeated the Adult Blue Dragon in 1 round, or even if you haven't defeated him since he saves both times, you have knocked him down to by 75% of his health by just a Rogues actions. Combined with the Fighter using Action Surge and getting 4 more attacks, you can assume now that the Dragon has just died to a Surprise round.

[Human Paragon 3]

So you are promoting scenarios like this

Rogue (Assassin) and Fighter (Battle Master) both get surprise on an enemy
Rogue goes first and uses Assassinate with Raper doing (2d8 + 20d6) + 5 damage with a possibility of a x2 on that over meaning about 84-168 damage with Rogue attack.
Next Battle Master uses Commanding attack to give Rogue another attack
Rogue repeats the 84-168 damage for a range between 168 to 336 damage from the Rogue alone on a Surprise round.

Congratulations, you have just defeated the Adult Blue Dragon in 1 round, or even if you haven't defeated him since he saves both times, you have knocked him down to by 75% of his health by just a Rogues actions. Combined with the Fighter using Action Surge and getting 4 more attacks, you can assume now that the Dragon has just died to a Surprise round.

Hehehe. That's IF you can get the drop on the dragon within melee range.

Also there's nothing in the Legendary Actions description that says you can't use them when you're surprised, so he could use the wing attack after the first sneak attack, hit everyone for some damage, and then move out of the rogue's melee range.

[Zeuel]

@Person_Man: I personally think the strength of the Eldritch Knight is going to come from having access to a lot of great reaction spells along with lower level Wizard buffs on an improved "chassis". Being able to play a Fighter who has access to multiple uses of Shield and Counterspell a day just seems like it might be pretty big at higher levels. Also the War Magic and Improved War Magic seems designed to slightly reimburse the Eldritch Knight having to cast a spell on one of their turns instead of making spellcasting their primary strategy. The very first thing I did when I saw the Eldritch Knight in the alpha playtest was look through the spell list and find ways to build an Eldritch Knight while having as few spells that took up my attacks as possible. :P

[HorridElemental]

The Rogue can SA again on other character's turn. This includes Opportunity Attacks and the attacks granted by a Battlemaster. Every character gets their own turn.

Can a rogue SA with a reaction? Does it actually say this?

No. It just says 1/turn. It doesn't give an action type that triggers it. It doesn't go by type of action but by when you get those actions.

I'm not saying it would be broken to allow it, but the rules say 1/turn. Reactions happen off the rogue's turn, and the battle master ability doesn't give the rogue a turn, but an action.

Each round the rogue gets 1 turn. They never gain more than 1 turn. They may gain extra actions but they never get more than one turn.

Therefore as per RAW, the rogue would only be able to sneak attack 1/turn, on their turn, since they never gain more turns per round.

This makes sense too, the rogue may get an action but they may not be ready for said action. An AoO happens really fast in reaction to someone else, hitting vitals is a bit harder that way.

Now, as a DM I would just rule SA as 1/Round to clear up confusion and allow it on any type of attack.

[MadBear]

So you are promoting scenarios like this

Rogue (Assassin) and Fighter (Battle Master) both get surprise on an enemy
Rogue goes first and uses Assassinate with Raper doing (2d8 + 20d6) + 5 damage with a possibility of a x2 on that over meaning about 84-168 damage with Rogue attack.
Next Battle Master uses Commanding attack to give Rogue another attack
Rogue repeats the 84-168 damage for a range between 168 to 336 damage from the Rogue alone on a Surprise round.

Congratulations, you have just defeated the Adult Blue Dragon in 1 round, or even if you haven't defeated him since he saves both times, you have knocked him down to by 75% of his health by just a Rogues actions. Combined with the Fighter using Action Surge and getting 4 more attacks, you can assume now that the Dragon has just died to a Surprise round.

regardless if it works or not, I find it funny that there's a plausible 2 person team-up to take down the blue dragon during the surprise round that had no caster or magic at all.

[1of3]

Can a rogue SA with a reaction? Does it actually say this?

No. It just says 1/turn. It doesn't give an action type that triggers it. It doesn't go by type of action but by when you get those actions.

I'm not saying it would be broken to allow it, but the rules say 1/turn. Reactions happen off the rogue's turn, and the battle master ability doesn't give the rogue a turn, but an action.

Each round the rogue gets 1 turn. They never gain more than 1 turn. They may gain extra actions but they never get more than one turn.

Therefore as per RAW, the rogue would only be able to sneak attack 1/turn, on their turn, since they never gain more turns per round.

This makes sense too, the rogue may get an action but they may not be ready for said action. An AoO happens really fast in reaction to someone else, hitting vitals is a bit harder that way.

Now, as a DM I would just rule SA as 1/Round to clear up confusion and allow it on any type of attack.


It does not specify that SA only works on the rogue's turn. I argue that the rogue can SA again, because when it's not the rogue's turn, it's some other character's turn. And the rogue can SA once per turn.

It's like 4e where you had an Opportunity Attack once per turn (excluding your own), so you can make an unlimited number of OAs, if enemies run past you in a line. In 5e you only have an Reaction once per round.

So there is a clear difference between round and turn. A round consists of the turns of all characters. The rogue can SA once on each of those turns.

[CyberThread]

regardless if it works or not, I find it funny that there's a plausible 2 person team-up to take down the blue dragon during the surprise round that had no caster or magic at all.



Casters are getting nerfed by these insta resistance saves. I think wiz did a good job in making melee stronger then in the past.

[Demonic Spoon]

It does not specify that SA only works on the rogue's turn. I argue that the rogue can SA again, because when it's not the rogue's turn, it's some other character's turn. And the rogue can SA once per turn.


This seems like one of those things that is technically correct but probably not intended.

[HorridElemental]

It does not specify that SA only works on the rogue's turn. I argue that the rogue can SA again, because when it's not the rogue's turn, it's some other character's turn. And the rogue can SA once per turn.

It's like 4e where you had an Opportunity Attack once per turn (excluding your own), so you can make an unlimited number of OAs, if enemies run past you in a line. In 5e you only have an Reaction once per round.

So there is a clear difference between round and turn. A round consists of the turns of all characters. The rogue can SA once on each of those turns.

You are saying that effects that give you an action actually give you a turn. You are trying to abuse the rules in order to justify your logic.

Turns give you "action", " move", "bonus actions" and free actions.

That is not what the effects are giving you. They are giving you a piece of that turn called out as a specific action. You never gain another turn. You need a turn in order to complete your SA.

With your logic you gain a turn whenever someone else does. Thus reactions can be used each turn no matter how many you used before.

I see where you are coming from but I think you are just holding out from prior editions and trying desperately to make the rogue that much better. I applaud you for this, non-casters need all the support they can get. But until Mike or whoever else comes out and says "once per each combatants in the encounter turns the rogue may SA" or something similar I'll see your claims as nothing more than grasping for straws and trying to Rule Lawyer your way into more damage.

[MadBear]

This seems like one of those things that is technically correct but probably not intended.

If that is the case, it's a bit irksome. I mean they went through the trouble of defining what a round and a turn meant. If you only wanted the rogue to get sneak attack once a round say so. Why say once a turn, when you clearly then set up ways for a rogue to attack during others turns.

[hawklost]

If that is the case, it's a bit irksome. I mean they went through the trouble of defining what a round and a turn meant. If you only wanted the rogue to get sneak attack once a round say so. Why say once a turn, when you clearly then set up ways for a rogue to attack during others turns.

So you want a rogue with the Charger feat to be able to do this every round

Charge more than 10 feet using Dash action, use his bonus action to attack (getting Sneak Attack)
Declare a Ready Action ("When Person X (person after him) moves a muscle, I attack the guy in front of me")
Next persons turn
Rogue uses his Readied action and gets another Sneak attack.

[MadBear]

So you want a rogue with the Charger feat to be able to do this every round

Charge more than 10 feet using Dash action, use his bonus action to attack (getting Sneak Attack)
Declare a Ready Action ("When Person X (person after him) moves a muscle, I attack the guy in front of me")
Next persons turn
Rogue uses his Readied action and gets another Sneak attack.

Do I want that? ..... I'm not sure. Maybe, maybe not. For things like the BM, I can see it being a fun useful synergy. For things like the charger, I can see it being abusable.

What I do know that I want, is for the people writing the rule book to use the correct terms that they already defined so that abilities work the way they say they do. Like I said already, they already defined turn and round. If the intent is for the rogue to have a maximum of 1 sneak attack per round, say so.

[1of3]

You are saying that effects that give you an action actually give you a turn. You are trying to abuse the rules in order to justify your logic.

Quite the opposite. The argument only works because making an OA does not happen on your turn. It happens on the turn of the opponent that triggered the OA. In the same way, when a fighter provides you with an attack, you attack on the fighter's turn.

And only because of that, only because you attack on a turn, when you have not attacked before (because you cannot usually do anything outside your turn), you get to SA again.


Also I think, the Assassin mentioned earlier, should do about ~250 damage per hit. I suppose the calculation did not include the 3rd level feature.

[HorridElemental]

Quite the opposite. The argument only works because making an OA does not happen on your turn. It happens on the turn of the opponent that triggered the OA. In the same way, when a fighter provides you with an attack, you attack on the fighter's turn.

And only because of that, only because you attack on a turn, when you have not attacked before (because you cannot usually do anything outside your turn), you get to SA again.


Also I think, the Assassin mentioned earlier, should do about ~250 damage per hit. I suppose the calculation did not include the 3rd level feature.

Well, I'm done with this argument. Keep trying to abuse the game all you want, it just won't fly in my games.

This is a fighter thread and I apologize to all for help pushing it away from that into Rogue territory.

Anyways.

Can anyone tell me which one seems more effective in battle. A EK Fighter or an Arcane Trickster Rogue? What about out of battle? I'm sure the answer is Rogue but I wanted to check.

[Person_Man]

Citation needed? Show your work? It seems like designers took care to make sure that this does not happen any longer compared to 3.5.

I haven't had an opportunity to play a high level game yet, but I know that the designers specifically avoided 4E style long, grindy, tactical combats. And my personal experience with the play tests and the Starter Set is that combat is that 5E combat is relatively fast and deadly. Also, the high level spells (or lower level spells cast out of high level slots) still look like Encounter winning options to me.

You're correct that we'll have to wait and see what the high level monsters in the Manual look like. But I'm guessing that if you win Initiative and cast one of your highest level spell slots available, you basically win that encounter. You may not win immediately, but you've tipped the balance of combat in your favor to the point where you can just use Cantrips for the rest of combat. If the DM tries to compensate for this too much, then then monster(s) can knock out a PC or two the first round and basically win.



Wizards only get back 1 spell slot per short rest. Getting back action surge and second wind seems better than that to me.

Here is my reasoning:

Short Rests are 1 hour long, but can't be interrupted by any strenuous activity. Taking a Short Rest heals some damage and restores some of the abilities for some classes. A Fighter gets all of his Rest related abilities back, with the exception of the Eldritch Knight's spells. A Cleric gets Channel Divinity, which fuels many different Domain abilities. Once per day, a Wizard can use Arcane Recovery to get (approximately) his highest level spell slot replaced plus some subclass abilities. I think that high level spells like Time Stop is demonstrably more useful then getting Action Surge + Second Wind et al restored. But let's put that issue aside for a moment.

A Long Rest can be interrupted by up to 1 hour of combat or other strenuous activities. Most combats are very brief. So Long Rests basically never fail. (This was by design. Mearls was asked about it on Twitter, and he something to the effect that playtesters hated Long Rests that failed because they were interrupted by a Kobold knocks on the door). Also, Rope Trick exists. (And I'm guessing similar spells like Secure Shelter also exist). So even if the DM is enforcing a homebrew or DMG module version of an easily interrupted Long Rest, players can still take Long Rests uninterrupted unless the DM is also banning spells. Taking a Long Rest heals a lot and restores all of the abilities for every character.

Therefore, if you're in the middle of a dungeon or some other potentially dangerous adventure location, there are few reasons for the party to take a Short Rest instead of a Long Rest, unless there is a DM enforced "beat the clock" element in the game. ("You must save the princess by midnight or she dies!") And if there is a beat the clock plot going on, you probably won't take a Short Rest either.

So my conclusion is that most parties will usually adventure until spellcasters start to run low on spell slots, and then they'll take a Long Rest. And in most cases Fighters will get their Short Rest abilities refilled with the same frequency that spellcasters get all of their class abilities refilled as well. T



@Person_Man: I personally think the strength of the Eldritch Knight is going to come from having access to a lot of great reaction spells along with lower level Wizard buffs on an improved "chassis". Being able to play a Fighter who has access to multiple uses of Shield and Counterspell a day just seems like it might be pretty big at higher levels. Also the War Magic and Improved War Magic seems designed to slightly reimburse the Eldritch Knight having to cast a spell on one of their turns instead of making spellcasting their primary strategy. The very first thing I did when I saw the Eldritch Knight in the alpha playtest was look through the spell list and find ways to build an Eldritch Knight while having as few spells that took up my attacks as possible. :P

Yeah, I agree with you that a lot will be determined by the spell lists. Also, I want to reiterate that low-level (1-6ish) Eldritch Knight's will probably be awesome in the same way low level Paladins look awesome.

Having said that, what's the benefit of playing an Eldritch Knight 11+ instead of a Bard 11+, Wizard 11+, or Sorcerer 11+? Because I'm not seeing one. Being able to make 1 attack as a Bonus Action does not compensate for having half-caster progression.

[1of3]

Once per day, a Wizard can use Arcane Recovery to get (approximately) his highest level spell slot replaced plus some subclass abilities.

Does not work on spell slots beyond fifth level.

[Zeuel]

Having said that, what's the benefit of playing an Eldritch Knight 11+ instead of a Bard 11+, Wizard 11+, or Sorcerer 11+? Because I'm not seeing one. Being able to make 1 attack as a Bonus Action does not compensate for having half-caster progression.

Personally if I played it I would completely ignore Improved War Caster as a strategy to build around and instead consider it a free attack to compensate you for giving up 2-4 attacks on the turns where you absolutely have to use an action to cast a spell(e.g. Fireball when being overrun by mooks or casting Stoneskin on your self). I don't plan on looking at it as actually playing a spellcaster, but as a Fighter who just happens to have a few spells. Spells like Counterspell and Shield are going to be useful from the second you get them to the very end of the campaign. You are the person doing 4 attacks a round at level 20 who is automatically going to attempt to counter the first 4 spellcasting attempts made by the big bad Lich(work together with the possible Wizard in your party and even the Lich's 9th level spells have to go through two DC 19 rolls at +5 before they can even have a chance to go off).

[da_chicken]

Does not work on spell slots beyond fifth level.

I'm going to need to be reminded of this repeatedly. I don't know why it's so hard to remember. Spells above level 5 are intended to be 1/day kind of things.

[MeeposFire]

This seems like one of those things that is technically correct but probably not intended.

I would say that is doubtful as that was exactly how the rogue operated in 4e so unless they forget everything from then they probably knew exactly what they were doing.

In case you don't know in 4e rogues get SA once a round when the PHB came out. This meant that once they successfully hit an enemy once and used SA they could not use it again until the next round.

When Essentials came out this was changed specifically to 1/turn instead of 1/round. This change meant that a rogue could get SA multiple times in a round but only 1/turn. For example the rogue on his turn stabs an orc for SA, then SA again when the orc runs away on the orc's turn, and then gets a third SA when the warlord commands him to attack on the warlords turn. With the older rules he would have had to use it only on the first orc.

Considering this was well known, documented, and presented by the developers as such (as in this was not just a Char OP trick that got accepted this was how the rules were presented by the developers themselves) I would find it unlikely that they would fail to know this particular ramification of using the term turn rather than round.

[Person_Man]

Does not work on spell slots beyond fifth level.

Huh. I hadn't noticed that. That's an excellent point.

Re-reading the Basic Wizard and its spell list for the fifth or sixth time now, it seems like they really really want to encourage you to use lower level spells a lot (spontaneous casting, Cantrips, Potent Cantrip, Arcane Renewal, Spell Mastery, Signature Spell, plus Ritual spells all look to be lower level) and high level spells rarely (you get a maximum of two 6th and 7th level spells, and one 8th and 9th level spells, and no way to renew them other then a Long Rest, and the quick theater of the mind resolution mechanics encourage you to have lots of combats per game day).

But the Wizard's resource management is such a bizarre Rube Goldberg Machine, and spells are already so much more powerful then what non-casters get, I'm guessing that its going to end up being broken in the same way it was broken in 1E/2E/3E. (Which is to say that it usually works fine at low-mid levels, but then at mid-high levels it basically comes to dominate gameplay unless the player purposefully restrains themselves or the DM takes out the ban hammer). For example, Foresight is an 8 hour non-Concentration buff that's superior to anything the Fighter or Rogue gets at level 17+. And that's just in the Basic rules. Who knows what will happen with 8 subclass options and 100 more spells in the PHB, and 30+ more subclasses and 1000 more spells in splat.

[Demonic Spoon]

Therefore, if you're in the middle of a dungeon or some other potentially dangerous adventure location, there are few reasons for the party to take a Short Rest instead of a Long Rest, unless there is a DM enforced "beat the clock" element in the game. ("You must save the princess by midnight or she dies!") And if there is a beat the clock plot going on, you probably won't take a Short Rest either.


I would think that the general case is that time matters at least a little bit. If the thing the PCs are trying to do is at least a little bit important, there's probably some time-sensitive aspect to it.

Also, the party is presumably much more susceptible to ambush when all but one member is asleep than when everyone's just sitting around resting. For one, anyone who typically wears armor will need to put it on, and everyone else will need to be roused from sleep and have to grab their equipment before being able to fight back. Also, if your enemies are in any way intelligent, 8 hours gives them the opportunity to get a lot of stuff done...

[Zeuel]

I would think that the general case is that time matters at least a little bit. If the thing the PCs are trying to do is at least a little bit important, there's probably some time-sensitive aspect to it.

Also, the party is presumably much more susceptible to ambush when all but one member is asleep than when everyone's just sitting around resting. For one, anyone who typically wears armor will need to put it on, and everyone else will need to be roused from sleep and have to grab their equipment before being able to fight back. Also, if your enemies are in any way intelligent, 8 hours gives them the opportunity to get a lot of stuff done...

When I DM I am considering making long rests only possible back in town or some other safe place. This is mostly so random encounters on the way to somewhere actually matter and I don't have to artificially cram multiple encounters into a day if the adventure doesn't call for it, but also so PCs aren't trying to find ways to get their beauty sleep in a clearly hostile and dangerous environment for a full resource reset.

[Demonic Spoon]

When I DM I am considering making long rests only possible back in town or some other safe place. This is mostly so random encounters on the way to somewhere actually matter and I don't have to artificially cram multiple encounters into a day if the adventure doesn't call for it, but also so PCs aren't trying to find ways to get their beauty sleep in a clearly hostile and dangerous environment for a full resource reset.

At some point, if the place they're going is >1 day away, they'll take a long rest anyway. I'd personally just have my monsters/enemies/BBEG/etc take full advantage of the fact that 80% of the party is asleep and unarmed.

[Zeuel]

At some point, if the place they're going is >1 day away, they'll take a long rest anyway. I'd personally just have my monsters/enemies/BBEG/etc take full advantage of the fact that 80% of the party is asleep and unarmed.

That's the thing. They'll sleep for 8 hours, but it will only count as a short rest. I'll structure adventure building on the premise that the "adventuring day" might actually last a couple of weeks but still have roughly the same number of encounters more or less(e.g. 6-8 encounters over 2 weeks instead of 6-8 encounters over the course of a day).

[pikeamus]

That's the thing. They'll sleep for 8 hours, but it will only count as a short rest. I'll structure adventure building on the premise that the "adventuring day" might actually last a couple of weeks but still have roughly the same number of encounters more or less(e.g. 6-8 encounters over 2 weeks instead of 6-8 encounters over the course of a day).

I like this idea very much and will totally steal it if I ever play this game.

[CyberThread]

At some point, if the place they're going is >1 day away, they'll take a long rest anyway. I'd personally just have my monsters/enemies/BBEG/etc take full advantage of the fact that 80% of the party is asleep and unarmed.

The system is already designed to be tougher and magic less a problem solver for everything. I wOuld be careful with how you do this. You may teach your players to never use abilities due too fears of resoUrces management leading them too possibly think combat is boring and not like the new system you are introducing.

[Demonic Spoon]

The system is already designed to be tougher and magic less a problem solver for everything. I wOuld be careful with how you do this. You may teach your players to never use abilities due too fears of resoUrces management leading them too possibly think combat is boring and not like the new system you are introducing.


This wouldn't be every long rest, nor even most. I'm thinking of a case that Person_Man described where the PCs get halfway through a dungeon and decide to just walk outside and camp so they can regain their spells...A case where they are known by and in close proximity to hostiles who presumably wouldn't just sit around while the party takes a nap.

[Sartharina]

and the "Fast Healing" when below 50% hit points from Survivor come way too late to be useful, because by 18th level everything is resolved in 1-2ish rounds of rocket tag.[citation needed]

[Morty]

So, looking over the Battlemaster maneuvers... I'd say Parry and Precision Attack definitely should be available to all Battlemasters at the very least, ideally for all warrior classes. Less obvious are Feinting Attack, Lunging Attack and Disarming Attack, but I think they should be more widely available too. The others might work as low-level moves in a pinch, provided something more impressive was available later. Do I understand it right that you need to spend a Superiority Dice on any maneuver, even if you don't roll it?

[obryn]

Having said that, what's the benefit of playing an Eldritch Knight 11+ instead of a Bard 11+, Wizard 11+, or Sorcerer 11+? Because I'm not seeing one. Being able to make 1 attack as a Bonus Action does not compensate for having half-caster progression.
I think you're supposed to look it as FIGHTER/wizard rather than Fighter/Wizard. So you get all the stuff on the Fighter chassis (which, IMO, the designers over-value) like extra attacks, feats, styles, and Action Surge. The spells "cost" about the same as the Battlemaster's maneuvers and dice, because let's face it, neither of their extra subclass features are worth phoning home about.

So there's some tricks you can play, like Action Surging spells, casting Shield, etc.


Do I understand it right that you need to spend a Superiority Dice on any maneuver, even if you don't roll it?
Yep, so at high level you are privileged to get back 1 die every encounter.

[1of3]

If anyone is still interested in the tangent about "once per turn" sneaking, there is a discussion about the matter on enworld. On page 2, there is a link to an @mearls tweet who confirms my interpretation.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?358224-5th-Edition-Caster-Rule-Martials-Drool&p=6360247&viewfull=1#post6360247

[Leon]

but I don't want my detective to have the ability to sing. not even as an extraneous class feature.

Then ignore the feature and utilize the rest of the class for what its worth

[Morty]

I don't think ignoring the class's defining feature is terribly helpful advice.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't think ignoring the class's defining feature is terribly helpful advice.

Exactly. Bard is only intended for Bards! I only ever want to play a Bard if I'm going to be singing, or making use of that class feature.

oh well, perhaps another thing to put into "universal system" pile.

[Falka]

Personally if I played it I would completely ignore Improved War Caster as a strategy to build around and instead consider it a free attack to compensate you for giving up 2-4 attacks on the turns where you absolutely have to use an action to cast a spell(e.g. Fireball when being overrun by mooks or casting Stoneskin on your self). I don't plan on looking at it as actually playing a spellcaster, but as a Fighter who just happens to have a few spells. Spells like Counterspell and Shield are going to be useful from the second you get them to the very end of the campaign. You are the person doing 4 attacks a round at level 20 who is automatically going to attempt to counter the first 4 spellcasting attempts made by the big bad Lich(work together with the possible Wizard in your party and even the Lich's 9th level spells have to go through two DC 19 rolls at +5 before they can even have a chance to go off).

I agree with this analysis. You can't get all the cake. If you wanted to play as a Wizard and solve every encounter with spells, roll a Wizard.

You are basically a glorified warrior with free access to many defensive spells (the most useful ones are usually 4th level or less).

[pwykersotz]

If anyone is still interested in the tangent about "once per turn" sneaking, there is a discussion about the matter on enworld. On page 2, there is a link to an @mearls tweet who confirms my interpretation.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?358224-5th-Edition-Caster-Rule-Martials-Drool&p=6360247&viewfull=1#post6360247

Cool, good to know that their wording is accurate, and that RAW and RAI agree here. I, for one, support our new burst damage overlords.

[CyberThread]

Exactly. Bard is only intended for Bards! I only ever want to play a Bard if I'm going to be singing, or making use of that class feature.

oh well, perhaps another thing to put into "universal system" pile.

Don't sing then. Tap dance. I fear not you oh mighty red Dragon! .

Player starts tap dancing activating instrumental version of song of inspiration

[Yuki Akuma]

I've always been fond of oratory bards. Epic speeches to inspire others, etc.

[Joe the Rat]

You could always go with Perform Denouement. Inspire those around you with your ability to tie the clues together and reveal the murderer. Very detective. Usually includes theme music.

Or you could whistle.


Seriously though, Oratory.

[Icewraith]

Perform (Accent).

Used by the great bardish detectives Holmes, Cluseau, Spade, Colombo, Poirot and many more!

[CyberThread]

Whale
oil
beef
hooked

[da_chicken]

Whale
oil
beef
hooked

Advice to Robin Williams in his Reddit AMA regarding an Irish accent.

[CyberThread]

the joke is a bit older then that.

[Sir_Leorik]

but I don't want my detective to have the ability to sing. not even as an extraneous class feature.

Maybe you should make a Mountain Dwarf Wizard and take the Criminal background, with the Spy option, instead.

[Zeuel]

So I didn't catch that part where 3 of the Eldritch Knight's spells get to be from any school instead of just Abjuration and Evocation. What craziness can that open up for Eldritch Knights? I was thinking Invisibility could let you escape from TPKs or you could use Greater Invisibility to get nearly a full minute of attacks as a Fighter while invisible. :P

[HorridElemental]

So I didn't catch that part where 3 of the Eldritch Knight's spells get to be from any school instead of just Abjuration and Evocation. What craziness can that open up for Eldritch Knights? I was thinking Invisibility could let you escape from TPKs or you could use Greater Invisibility to get nearly a full minute of attacks as a Fighter while invisible. :P

Do you really need anything other than wall of fire?

EK Fighter: Wall of fire
BBEG: Hahaha! Now you are trapped here with me!
EK Fighter: No... Now you are trapped in here with ME! *determined stare with a sly smile*

But is see flying and greater invisibility being awesome. But I wonder how broken the class would be if their spells reset on a short rest like the warlock? Should raise the power up enough to be a good to great choice. Right now the EK Fighter seems ok to good due to slooow progression and low spell known/slots.

[Sartharina]

So I didn't catch that part where 3 of the Eldritch Knight's spells get to be from any school instead of just Abjuration and Evocation. What craziness can that open up for Eldritch Knights? I was thinking Invisibility could let you escape from TPKs or you could use Greater Invisibility to get nearly a full minute of attacks as a Fighter while invisible. :P

Or you could grab Fabricate and change your armor every day!

[da_chicken]

So I didn't catch that part where 3 of the Eldritch Knight's spells get to be from any school instead of just Abjuration and Evocation. What craziness can that open up for Eldritch Knights? I was thinking Invisibility could let you escape from TPKs or you could use Greater Invisibility to get nearly a full minute of attacks as a Fighter while invisible. :P

As was pointed out to me, it's actually four of them (3rd, 8th, 14th, 20th). Only 2 of the first 3 spells you learn at level 3 need to be Abj/Evoc.

[Leon]

I don't think ignoring the class's defining feature is terribly helpful advice.

If the class does everything else you want then why not?

Deciding that a character concept using the ideal class won't work because of that class having a feature that you are not forced in any shape or form to use at all other than it existing is silly.

[Lord Raziere]

If the class does everything else you want then why not?

Deciding that a character concept using the ideal class won't work because of that class having a feature that you are not forced in any shape or form to use at all other than it existing is silly.

No, its implying that the person has learned something that they shouldn't have, its a reminder that this is not actually a detective, its a bard that thinks its a detective, nothing more. Its immersion breaking. Either all abilities contribute to the concept I want, or its not the concept.

[da_chicken]

No, its implying that the person has learned something that they shouldn't have, its a reminder that this is not actually a detective, its a bard that thinks its a detective, nothing more. Its immersion breaking. Either all abilities contribute to the concept I want, or its not the concept.

You're going to find it rough playing a class-based game like that. I mean, I know where you're coming from. I'm just saying class-based RPGs probably aren't where you should be drawing lines like this because you're just always going to be disappointed. There's no Johnny Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Smith_(Dead_Zone)) class in D&D.

[Lord Raziere]

You're going to find it rough playing a class-based game like that. I mean, I know where you're coming from. I'm just saying class-based RPGs probably aren't where you should be drawing lines like this because you're just always going to be disappointed. There's no Johnny Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Smith_(Dead_Zone)) class in D&D.

Yea but here is my mind starts to get crazy and unreasonable:

universal systems are too samey. there is often not enough difference between things to make me feel like they're different. so. agh. its like my mind is intentionally being stubborn about this and such. help?

[da_chicken]

Yea but here is my mind starts to get crazy and unreasonable:

universal systems are too samey. there is often not enough difference between things to make me feel like they're different. so. agh. its like my mind is intentionally being stubborn about this and such. help?

Nope, that's the same reason I don't like them either. Especially at the beginning of the game. Like in FASA's Shadowrun (I only played 1st and 2nd editions... or was it 2nd and 3rd?), the first few sessions it feels like the only difference is that one guy has a deck and another has a gun. Like the only thing that's different is the equipment. Over time the characters develop, but that's kind of like hearing "Oh, 20 hours in the game gets really good!" when someone talks about a video game. Why can't the game just be good now?

That's why I like class-based games, and also why 3.x's multiclass buffet annoys me.

[Lord Raziere]

Nope, that's the same reason I don't like them either. Especially at the beginning of the game. Like in FASA's Shadowrun (I only played 1st and 2nd editions... or was it 2nd and 3rd?), the first few sessions it feels like the only difference is that one guy has a deck and another has a gun. Like the only thing that's different is the equipment. Over time the characters develop, but that's kind of like hearing "Oh, 20 hours in the game gets really good!" when someone talks about a video game. Why can't the game just be good now?

That's why I like class-based games, and also why 3.x's multiclass buffet annoys me.

But here is the thing: class games I also don't like, because I can't play any concept I want on them, so I go to universal games anyways, because then at least my concept works without jumping through any hoops.

so I guess I may just have to change my view on this: the mechanics are just atoms after all, and a certain points, ALL mechanics are in some way the same. therefore I have to consider how all those mechanics put together make a difference from others.

[Zeuel]

But here is the thing: class games I also don't like, because I can't play any concept I want on them, so I go to universal games anyways, because then at least my concept works without jumping through any hoops.

so I guess I may just have to change my view on this: the mechanics are just atoms after all, and a certain points, ALL mechanics are in some way the same. therefore I have to consider how all those mechanics put together make a difference from others.

Since all the class features can be either oration or music based then you could just ask the DM if you could trade out the three musical instrument tool proficiencies for some kind of artisan tool proficiencies. Worst case scenario you could probably just flat out drop them from your character.

[obryn]

But here is the thing: class games I also don't like, because I can't play any concept I want on them, so I go to universal games anyways, because then at least my concept works without jumping through any hoops.
Have you tried Savage Worlds? It's definitely a universal game, but the Professional edges do a fairly good job of separating them out.

[Leon]

No, its implying that the person has learned something that they shouldn't have, its a reminder that this is not actually a detective, its a bard that thinks its a detective, nothing more. Its immersion breaking. Either all abilities contribute to the concept I want, or its not the concept.

... your loss of a otherwise good concept in being unable to not use a class feature of the class that would otherwise be a perfect fit.

Ive played a fair number of Characters over time that have been Druids by class if not Character. Never used the Wildshape mechanic. I don't like it yet its there tacked onto a class that i otherwise like the ideas for but wasn't going to let it stop me from making a enjoyable character. Granted i'd often try and get it swapped out for something more useful but if not i could happily ignore it.




A detective is an investigator, either a member of a law enforcement agency or a private person. The latter may be known as private investigators or "private eyes".


There is no reason for a Bard or a Fighter or Any Class really to not be a "Detective".
Until they make a Detective class (and even after) its a concept that any class can do.

[MeeposFire]

Don't like the bardic performances? Perhaps change the performance type to comedy/one liners. Think of every noir and action type movies/stories ever. Many involve the prtagonist cracking jokes, creating joke names for his enemies (think **** Tracy with all the crazy villain names), or cracking a one liner at just the right time to break the tension. Every time your detective bard needs to do a "performance" to help in a situation don't sing just have a list of handy one liners that will define your character.

[da_chicken]

Don't like the bardic performances? Perhaps change the performance type to comedy/one liners. Think of every noir and action type movies/stories ever. Many involve the prtagonist cracking jokes, creating joke names for his enemies (think **** Tracy with all the crazy villain names), or cracking a one liner at just the right time to break the tension. Every time your detective bard needs to do a "performance" to help in a situation don't sing just have a list of handy one liners that will define your character.

Well I guess we know what class David Caruso is.

[MeeposFire]

Well I guess we know what class David Caruso is.

Lol I just realized that it censored Mr. Tracy's name. Guess I can't talk about the movie or the comic book either...

[Lord Raziere]

Have you tried Savage Worlds? It's definitely a universal game, but the Professional edges do a fairly good job of separating them out.

I believe I have it, but I haven't looked at it in a while......

hm, no. they are not different enough. they're just little labels with little bonuses and some minor ability stuck on them. I'm afraid that it might be a little too abstract for what I like, about the same as Fate, and I used to think Fate was the best, but I soon learned it was a little too abstract for me as well, I need my abilities....well-represented, which I find Mutants and Masterminds does well. the feeling of sameyness comes when I look at similar abilities and start of thinking as nothing but the same things but with a different skin- which I must avoid.

I must instead look at it like atoms. technically at a certain level, everything is the same, just a bunch of atoms. but we are unique in the patterns that arise from such atoms combining together in different ways, much like how when I build something from M&M, its all the same parts but the emergent pattern that the all form together- that is different, just like how a class is a bigger pattern formed of smaller parts, which is the difference I seek. at a certain level, all is the same, and therefore difference and uniqueness is what I make of it. the classes are just designed in a way to form patterns that people are used to. All is the same, and therefore nothing is. Or I'm just spouting philosophical nonsense, either one.

[Morty]

Class based systems will always involve a measure of hammering square pegs into round holes - it's part of the package. But they don't really need to be as restrictive as D&D is.

[HorridElemental]

Class based systems will always involve a measure of hammering square pegs into round holes - it's part of the package. But they don't really need to be as restrictive as D&D is.

Sadly a majority of the fans would freak if you took away the classes. Just another golden cow (though a useful one) that is stuck with D&D.

I like the 5e rules and would love to recreate a more general class system (or no class system) that stops with such strict classes that can be used with the rest of the system.

[pwykersotz]

Sadly a majority of the fans would freak if you took away the classes. Just another golden cow (though a useful one) that is stuck with D&D.

I like the 5e rules and would love to recreate a more general class system (or no class system) that stops with such strict classes that can be used with the rest of the system.

They could call it DURPS!

:smallamused:

[HorridElemental]

They could call it DURPS!

:smallamused:

Last time I tried gurps it was crazy over complicated, unless I'm not thinking of gurps and some other system where I played a 2D 8 bit Red Mage (a la 8 bit theater).

[Morty]

Sadly a majority of the fans would freak if you took away the classes. Just another golden cow (though a useful one) that is stuck with D&D.

I like the 5e rules and would love to recreate a more general class system (or no class system) that stops with such strict classes that can be used with the rest of the system.

You can have broad classes or you can have narrow classes; you just need to be consistent about it and try to cover as many archetypes as you can that make sense in the system. 5e does neither - it takes the legacy classes and tinkers with them.

[Sir_Leorik]

Lol I just realized that it censored Mr. Tracy's name. Guess I can't talk about the movie or the comic book either...

Or Nightwing's secret identity. :smallsigh:

[Sartharina]

No, its implying that the person has learned something that they shouldn't have, its a reminder that this is not actually a detective, its a bard that thinks its a detective, nothing more. Its immersion breaking. Either all abilities contribute to the concept I want, or its not the concept.A rogue makes a decent detective! As does a fighter. Or wizard.

[Lord Raziere]

A rogue makes a decent detective! As does a fighter. Or wizard.

Nope, no wizard, has to be a real divination magic-fighting hybrid. not wizard with a little sprinkle. fighter doesn't have divination magic in its Eldritch Knight feature, so no point, cause my concept specifically calls for a detective who both fights good and uses divination magic. while the rogue Arcane Trickster uses illusions and enchantment, which I would only use for thieving- the exact opposite of what I want.

real specific concept. it ain't a normal detective I'm talking about here.

[Draken]

Nope, no wizard, has to be a real divination magic-fighting hybrid. not wizard with a little sprinkle. fighter doesn't have divination magic in its Eldritch Knight feature, so no point, cause my concept specifically calls for a detective who both fights good and uses divination magic. while the rogue Arcane Trickster uses illusions and enchantment, which I would only use for thieving- the exact opposite of what I want.

real specific concept. it ain't a normal detective I'm talking about here.

Both can pick spells outside of their specialty from time to time, actually.

The Eldritch knight Detective can use his defensive and offensive spells for exactly what they are meant for when inevitably the criminals attack him. The Arcane Trickster Detective can use his illusions and enchantments for interrogation and infiltration.

[Lord Raziere]

Both can pick spells outside of their specialty from time to time, actually.

The Eldritch knight Detective can use his defensive and offensive spells for exactly what they are meant for when inevitably the criminals attack him. The Arcane Trickster Detective can use his illusions and enchantments for interrogation and infiltration.

Nope, its divination or bust. and they only get THREE spells for choosing outside specialties, which is not enough.

and I'm sure those concepts would be good for other characters, but not this one.

[MeeposFire]

How many do you need really? Also are any of them able to be used as rituals. If so isn't there a ritual feat?