Will we get a 5e Tome of Battle?

[Windrammer]

I can't find any word on this or any other supplements from Wizards, but I don't see why not.

Yes, we have battlemaster now, and you can just flavor it as oriental as you please, but I see the existing maneuver mechanic as simply making for a nice and simple transition to the tome of battle, with fancier, extra-wuxia maneuvers that scale.

Hell, they could just be new archetypes for Paladin, Monk, and Fighter respectively, with a new pool of maneuvers that regular Battlemasters can go for as well.

The Warblade archetype refreshes maneuvers, and gets some fancy ones. Perhaps it doesn't add the extra die to hit/damage for the sake of balance.

The Crusader is just a Paladin with maneuvers.

The Swordsage is a monk with more martial proficiencies and maneuvers.

And I would LOVE to see a cleaned up maneuver list. Nonsensical crap like exorcism of steel can go out the window, we'll just have touch attacks, extra attacks, and damage bonuses, with some saving throw padding like rolling a proficient Con save in place of will for Moment of Perfect Mind, you know?

[Knaight]

Yes, we have battlemaster now, and you can just flavor it as oriental as you please, but I see the existing maneuver mechanic as simply making for a nice and simple transition to the tome of battle, with fancier, extra-wuxia maneuvers that scale.

While wuxia is among the sources Tome of Battle pulled from, it aligns itself more with high powered and cinematic than "oriental". There's a lot of fiction from East Asia set in East Asia where the maneuver system is no more appropriate than what is already there, and the refluffing involved would largely be about cultural backgrounds and equipment.

[Windrammer]

While wuxia is among the sources Tome of Battle pulled from, it aligns itself more with high powered and cinematic than "oriental". There's a lot of fiction from East Asia set in East Asia where the maneuver system is no more appropriate than what is already there, and the refluffing involved would largely be about cultural backgrounds and equipment.

I'm unsure of where you're coming from here. It's always struck me as starkly oriental, just in a very cheesy and well removed from reality kind of way. There's a significant precedent in fiction of there being special supernatural "moves" that martial artists accomplish at high levels of expertise.

And I'm not sure I understand that second sentence, could you explain more please?

[Knaight]

I'm unsure of where you're coming from here. It's always struck me as starkly oriental, just in a very cheesy and well removed from reality kind of way. There's a significant precedent in fiction of there being special supernatural "moves" that martial artists accomplish at high levels of expertise.

And I'm not sure I understand that second sentence, could you explain more please?

There's also plenty of that in more western stuff (Cu Chulain comes to mind, with a handful of repeated tricks), and a bunch of work where the moves are generally absent. For instance, Water Margin - the book that kicked off wuxia - has essentially nothing in it regarding special moves. There are a few characters who would be modeled pretty well as berserkers, some archers, a lot of generic fighter types, etc. Basically the "oriental" stereotypes reflect more a small subset that only got noticed because it seemed different, and is largely nonrepresentative.

[Windrammer]

There's also plenty of that in more western stuff (Cu Chulain comes to mind, with a handful of repeated tricks), and a bunch of work where the moves are generally absent. For instance, Water Margin - the book that kicked off wuxia - has essentially nothing in it regarding special moves. There are a few characters who would be modeled pretty well as berserkers, some archers, a lot of generic fighter types, etc. Basically the "oriental" stereotypes reflect more a small subset that only got noticed because it seemed different, and is largely nonrepresentative.

That's a good point... What it really comes down to me is the fanciful martial arts. Tiger Style, White Raven style, etc. I never said that the tome of battle was accurately reflective of Wuxia, rather that it's clearly inspired by it.

I mean, hell, the oriental theme is declared in the thing's mission statement.

"If you’ve ever played a ninja or samurai—or for that matter,
a monk—amid a group of “standard” D&D heroes, then this
book is for you."

"Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords deliberately blends the
genres of Far East action games and the “typical” D&D game
world. Portions of this material resemble a martial-arts supplement
suitable for an Oriental Adventures game."

It's intended to be COMPATIBLE with a western setting, but it's undeniably oriental.

[OldTrees1]

I do not think we will see a 5e Tome of Battle.

If you look at the # non caster subclass class features: # caster spells prepared ratio you can see that it is REALLY low. This low ratio means ToB grade maneuvers would not work as a subclass. As such I doubt we will ever see ToB grade maneuvers in 5e.

[Windrammer]

I do not think we will see a 5e Tome of Battle.

If you look at the # non caster subclass class features: # caster spells prepared ratio you can see that it is REALLY low. This low ratio means ToB grade maneuvers would not work as a subclass. As such I doubt we will ever see ToB grade maneuvers in 5e.

I wouldn't expect it to be quite to the same extent, for the most part it would be a small pool of fancy maneuvers that remain relevant throughout the character's life. Not the "okay you're level 17 now so you can do 100 damage to keep up with the casters" stuff.

Just Battlemaster with semimagical and refreshable maneuvers. Again, touch attacks, extra attacks, etc. I'd live to see a lean towards utility.

[OldTrees1]

I wouldn't expect it to be quite to the same extent, for the most part it would be a small pool of fancy maneuvers that remain relevant throughout the character's life. Not the "okay you're level 17 now so you can do 100 damage to keep up with the casters" stuff.

Just Battlemaster with semimagical and refreshable maneuvers. Again, touch attacks, extra attacks, etc. I'd live to see a lean towards utility.

I was also talking number not power. So how small of a maneuver pool are you talking about?

If you really do mean "like Battlemaster" then it might be something WotC expects 5E DMs to handle.

[Feldarove]

I might be exceptionally clueless on all of this, but I do not know how any future supplements look. While we might not get a Tome of Battle-esque book, I imagine that some book down the line will present a few options for some classes to play with ToB like styles, but not a whole book dedicated to it. A lot of people liked ToB and lots of new players jumped in with 4th edition (which I personally think adopted a lot from ToB). I can't imagine they'd only have 1 sub-class represent an entire edition of game and a much loved book of 3.5.

I hate ToB and such, but a lot of my fellow players love it.

[Windrammer]

I was also talking number not power. So how small of a maneuver pool are you talking about?

If you really do mean "like Battlemaster" then it might be something WotC expects 5E DMs to handle.

The class features aren't to be ignored, I just considered the aspect of maneuvers to be the most challenging part of this. I think a almost-magical, fancy intelligence fighter is important. Eldritch knight doesn't really work, with the spells presented.

[mr_odd]

Probs not. I think that we'll get archetypes and new classes that are wildly different than what we already have. Psionics, Elemental, and anything else that is wildly different or would be too difficult to homebrew.

[silveralen]

Just Battlemaster with semimagical and refreshable maneuvers. Again, touch attacks, extra attacks, etc. I'd live to see a lean towards utility.

Touch attacks don't exist this edition, and creatures don't come with touch ACs vs their normal ones, so that probably isn't going to happen. Other stuff might get in.

Personally, I'd expect to see a monk subclass focusing on weapons, not sure how a fighter subclass would work with battlemaster already existing.

Honestly, shadowsage and crusader basically exist. Paladin and monk drew pretty heavily from them as inspiration, just like those classes orginally drew on paladin and monk.

[SharkForce]

honestly, i sincerely hope that they don't try and use fighters, barbarians, and paladins as the measuring stick. paths for them sounds like a good idea, until you realize that it will inherently be restrained to that power level.

i'd rather see them introduce new caster classes equivalent in power to the various non-casters, and new martial classes equivalent in power to the various casters. for the powered-up martials, something like the sword sage, crusader et al would pretty much fit, which means all you really need after that are 4e-style casters.

[Eslin]

Ok, as probably the world's biggest fan of the Tome of Battle, I need to say this: We will never get the Tome of Battle as it as a remake, and that's ok.

People keep talking about 'wuxia' and 'oriental' stylings and that kind of thing is not necessary. We loved the ToB because it gave martials interesting and competitive options, made combat a lot more fun. The fluff behind it was interesting, but it was only fluff - fluff is a very mutable thing, and I wouldn't want that specific a set of fluff again. A fighter can come from fantasy China or fantasy Europe, you don't need a different class for that, just different fluff.

However, the crunch was and is relevant. 5e is still in the same boat 3.5 was when the ToB was released, in that we have casters with a huge set of interesting in-combat options, options that grow in number as they level, while martials are often stuck with a few basic options that they've had all game. The closest we have is the battlemaster, something which imitates both the warblade and the warlord and fails pathetically at both. ToB worked because it aped the caster style of advancement, which was easily adaptable to martial usage and meant the discrete options given could be powerful for the same reason spells were.

Now, we don't need the same style of advancement, it doesn't have to copy the 1-9 spell levels so closely. What we need is advancement in the same style - casters naturally gain more options and more powerful options as they go, and we need a system of maneuvers (actual name unimportant) that does so too. They also need to not be subclasses - sure, 'partial caster' style subclasses for existing classes might be a good edition, but there need to be full classes dedicated to the new system. Why? Because fighters and paladins already gain a lot of power from the class itself, the subclasses don't add enough power for a full ToB style addition without having those subclasses be the flat out best option.

People need to not worry about the specifics - we don't need a new crusader class or desert wind style, we need the ideas behind them. 5e lacks what ToB brought to the table and desperately needs it - and I hope it'll get it, though my faith's kind of shaken by the DMG. Just be aware that if we do get it, it won't necessarily be cosmetically similar to the ToB, but that won't be important. What will be important is having a martial class who never has to just say 'I attack'.

[silveralen]

What will be important is having a martial class who never has to just say 'I attack'

Literally every class to fall back on default abilities. In this edition, no class will ever not fall back on a basic attack, rather it be a cantrip or a straight hit them in the face. Any manuever usable all day is going to be a basic attack in all but name, and will probably be less effective than a normal attack given the focus on diversity people mention in said classes.

Caster scaling special abilities means caster level at will abilities: mainly crap.

Seriously, do you want scaling useful abilities on par with a caster? Then a fighter will laugh when your basic manuevers do less than his normal attacks, and you'll make up for it when you drop your better abilities. If you want to always have fun basic options, then no, no high power scaling options. You do not get the best parts of fighter and a caster glued together.

[Eslin]

Literally every class to fall back on default abilities. In this edition, no class will ever not fall back on a basic attack, rather it be a cantrip or a straight hit them in the face. Any manuever usable all day is going to be a basic attack in all but name, and will probably be less effective than a normal attack given the focus on diversity people mention in said classes.

Caster scaling special abilities means caster level at will abilities: mainly crap.

Seriously, do you want scaling useful abilities on par with a caster? Then a fighter will laugh when your basic manuevers do less than his normal attacks, and you'll make up for it when you drop your better abilities. If you want to always have fun basic options, then no, no high power scaling options. You do not get the best parts of fighter and a caster glued together.

Yes, I know. And I don't want to, hence the need for a separate class. Tome of Battle was never exceptional for its damage, its damage was merely decent and reliable, and a similar system need not fill the same niche it once did. What is missing at present for martials is in and out of combat utility, leadership based classes and interesting in-combat options, plus maybe some more ranged options (barbarians and paladins are both melee only, more options would be nice).

We already have classes like barbarians that can spam attacks for heavy damage, we don't need more of those. Direct combatants done ToB style would more likely be based on conditional damage (with lots of different options, you can have them do less damage when things are spammed and better damage when the right moves are used at the right time), utility (the only real combat utility class we have is the monk and it has its own unique style and role, there's room for more) or tanking (5e's options for forcing opponents to attack you or protecting allies are incredibly limited).

[JoeJ]

People need to not worry about the specifics - we don't need a new crusader class or desert wind style, we need the ideas behind them. 5e lacks what ToB brought to the table and desperately needs it - and I hope it'll get it, though my faith's kind of shaken by the DMG. Just be aware that if we do get it, it won't necessarily be cosmetically similar to the ToB, but that won't be important. What will be important is having a martial class who never has to just say 'I attack'.

How about: "I try to push him off the cliff" or "I trip her" or "I grapple the hobgoblin" or "I climb up on top of the dragon" or "I cut the rope to drop the chandelier on the guards" or "I try to disarm the orc" or "I run over the soldier with my wagon" or "I light the curtains on fire with my torch" or "I drink down the last of my ale, then hurl the empty mug at the goblin's face" or "I reset the trap so it will hit the ogre" or "I cast Minor Illusion to create the sound of soldiers running toward this room" or "I roll the barrel down the stairs toward the oncoming guards?"

[Windrammer]

How about: "I try to push him off the cliff" or "I trip her" or "I grapple the hobgoblin" or "I climb up on top of the dragon" or "I cut the rope to drop the chandelier on the guards" or "I try to disarm the orc" or "I run over the soldier with my wagon" or "I light the curtains on fire with my torch" or "I drink down the last of my ale, then hurl the empty mug at the goblin's face" or "I reset the trap so it will hit the ogre" or "I cast Minor Illusion to create the sound of soldiers running toward this room" or "I roll the barrel down the stairs toward the oncoming guards?"

That really doesn't apply at all. You mostly named actions of unlikely usefulness for specific situations. A martial adept can do something interesting and effective in a dull encounter, that's the point.

I mean, who the hell would light a curtain on fire instead of attacking someone? How often would that really be practical?

[Eslin]

How about: "I try to push him off the cliff" or "I trip her" or "I grapple the hobgoblin" or "I climb up on top of the dragon" or "I cut the rope to drop the chandelier on the guards" or "I try to disarm the orc" or "I run over the soldier with my wagon" or "I light the curtains on fire with my torch" or "I drink down the last of my ale, then hurl the empty mug at the goblin's face" or "I reset the trap so it will hit the ogre" or "I cast Minor Illusion to create the sound of soldiers running toward this room" or "I roll the barrel down the stairs toward the oncoming guards?"

No thanks, I'd like to try a martial whose tactical options come from their martial skill and training. Environmental or circumstantial advantage is fun, but the entire point of a ToB-like system is not needing those things to have options.

Whether a druid creates magical spikes, turns into a bear, calls lightning, traps their foes in a sleet storm or summons a horde of animals may differ based on the situation they find themselves in, but they have those abilities regardless. Circumstantial advantage is fun, to my mind a discrete set of tools to capitalise on that advantage or to use when such advantage isn't obtainable is more fun.

[PinkysBrain]

Unless they do some type of oriental campaign setting I doubt they would deem wuxia appropriate. The people in charge have also already rejected in combat recharging twice (the relative lack of encounter/daily resource constraints is as big a part of ToB as the manoeuvres themselves IMO). Once for 4e and once during the beta ... so I think the chance is somewhere between slim and none.

[Eslin]

Unless they do some type of oriental campaign setting I doubt they would deem wuxia appropriate. The people in charge have also already rejected in combat recharging twice (the relative lack of encounter/daily resource constraints is as big a part of ToB as the manoeuvres themselves IMO). Once for 4e and once during the beta ... so I think the chance is somewhere between slim and none.

Wuxia's not important and recharge mechanics in no way have to stay constant between editions. You aren't balancing their recharge against 3.X's spells per day, you're basing it on 5e's x/day and short rest abilities.

Again people, the idea behind it is what is important, the specific implementation of the 3.5 ToB isn't.

[PinkysBrain]

Again people, the idea behind it is what is important

Has it occurred to you that we don't agree on what's important?

[Eslin]

Has it occurred to you that we don't agree on what's important?

Really? You looked at the Tome of Battle and decided that the scaling pool of martial options that increased in number (and the design ideas behind that) weren't important, but the generic flavour and 3.5 specific implementation were?

[PinkysBrain]

Really? You looked at the Tome of Battle and decided that the scaling pool of martial options that increased in number (and the design ideas behind that) weren't important

Straw man.

but the generic flavour and 3.5 specific implementation were?

Begging the question.

I think the resource mechanics are also essential to ToB.

[Gwendol]

I can't find any word on this or any other supplements from Wizards, but I don't see why not.

Yes, we have battlemaster now, and you can just flavor it as oriental as you please, but I see the existing maneuver mechanic as simply making for a nice and simple transition to the tome of battle, with fancier, extra-wuxia maneuvers that scale.

Hell, they could just be new archetypes for Paladin, Monk, and Fighter respectively, with a new pool of maneuvers that regular Battlemasters can go for as well.

The Warblade archetype refreshes maneuvers, and gets some fancy ones. Perhaps it doesn't add the extra die to hit/damage for the sake of balance.

The Crusader is just a Paladin with maneuvers.

The Swordsage is a monk with more martial proficiencies and maneuvers.

And I would LOVE to see a cleaned up maneuver list. Nonsensical crap like exorcism of steel can go out the window, we'll just have touch attacks, extra attacks, and damage bonuses, with some saving throw padding like rolling a proficient Con save in place of will for Moment of Perfect Mind, you know?

Some of the ToB content has been rolled up into actual class features, which makes the reason for making such a book rather moot. I expect to see more battlemaster maneuvers (maybe even schools), more monk archetypes (grappler monk FTW), and perhaps even another class that uses maneuvers, but not a full-blown ToB.

[Eslin]

Straw man.


Begging the question.

I think the resource mechanics are also essential to ToB.

Resource mechanics are, yes. Discrete abilities need to be costed to be powerful - but it doesn't have to use the same resource mechanics.


Some of the ToB content has been rolled up into actual class features, which makes the reason for making such a book rather moot. I expect to see more battlemaster maneuvers (maybe even schools), more monk archetypes (grappler monk FTW), and perhaps even another class that uses maneuvers, but not a full-blown ToB.
No they haven't. The pool of maneuvers a fighter gets actually shrinks with level, and again the specific content is not really the point, seeing as that specific content was added in the context of 3.5's useless martials and ridiculous casters. The reasons the system existed still exist in 5e, so I would expect several proper classes (as if its made into a subclass it will be too weak, since the published classes all get most of their power from the class itself.

Saying that 5e's classes have ToB features is like saying they have warlord features - a couple of abilities vaguely similar in aspect, no actual resemblance.

[Person_Man]

Every previous edition of D&D has followed the same basic arc for official supplemeets:


1) Core rules come out.

2) Delay where few other things come out beyond modules/miniatures/etc, because they don't want to undercut sales of core rules, the lead designers are spending most of their time at conventions publicizing the game, and they don't have relationships with a bench of freelance writers (who write the vast bulk of supplements) for this edition yet.

3) A small number of supplements that are mostly in tune with the basic balance/design of the core rules come out, though some of the crunch within these supplements can radically change the game for certain builds when min/maxers get their hands on them.

4) As the sale of the core rules decline, lots and lots of supplements are printed, of very mixed quality, which can dramatically change the nature of the game for groups that use them.

5) A "half-edition" of some kind comes out, overhauling the core rules in some major ways while keeping its basic design framework, incorporating the lessons learned from the past several years of playing the game and seeing which supplements sold well. Sales briefly spike.

6) All of the supplements basically get republished again with slightly different names and formats, updated to the new half-edition.

7) A new round of truly different supplements starts to come out, and a few of them might set up the basic framework for the next edition.

8) Sales decline across the board. Company starts working on a new edition. Lots of supplements are still printed for the current edition, mostly of very poor quality.


I'm guessing that given its controversial nature, something resembling the Tome of Battle wont' be printed until Phase 4, which will be about 2-4 years from now.

[Gwendol]

No they haven't. The pool of maneuvers a fighter gets actually shrinks with level, and again the specific content is not really the point, seeing as that specific content was added in the context of 3.5's useless martials and ridiculous casters. The reasons the system existed still exist in 5e, so I would expect several proper classes (as if its made into a subclass it will be too weak, since the published classes all get most of their power from the class itself.

Saying that 5e's classes have ToB features is like saying they have warlord features - a couple of abilities vaguely similar in aspect, no actual resemblance.

I was more thinking about action surge, and the 5e monk. The battlemaster is the most evident ToB-lite class.

[Eslin]

I was more thinking about action surge, and the 5e monk. The battlemaster is the most evident ToB-lite class.
Which is kind of my point, and I'm assuming you're equating action surge with time stands still. Fixed abilities aren't the point - in exchange for lack of choice you boost the abilities, hence action surge being really bloody good. The battlemaster is kind of pathetic compared to a ToB class - it has a small pool of maneuvers, the amount of which are available as a choice actually go down with level, and it's on the fighter chassis which already contains most of the classes power.

The 5e monk shares with paladin the mantle of my favourite 5e martial class, having access to unique abilities and defenses that a caster class can't easily imitate and a reasonable number of mechanical options. What ToB brought was choice, done in a similar manner to casting. The ability to pick your abilities like a wizard does instead of having a specific, fixed set of abilities from your class was great, and it's an option 5e needs.

[toapat]

Tome of Battle for 5th isnt happening. However, this is for a much more simpler reason then you are trying to contort out of the edition:

Tome of Battle would itself not be a book about doing something new, it would be a glorified Complete Warrior

[silveralen]

Yes, I know. And I don't want to, hence the need for a separate class. Tome of Battle was never exceptional for its damage, its damage was merely decent and reliable, and a similar system need not fill the same niche it once did. What is missing at present for martials is in and out of combat utility, leadership based classes and interesting in-combat options, plus maybe some more ranged options (barbarians and paladins are both melee only, more options would be nice).

We already have classes like barbarians that can spam attacks for heavy damage, we don't need more of those. Direct combatants done ToB style would more likely be based on conditional damage (with lots of different options, you can have them do less damage when things are spammed and better damage when the right moves are used at the right time), utility (the only real combat utility class we have is the monk and it has its own unique style and role, there's room for more) or tanking (5e's options for forcing opponents to attack you or protecting allies are incredibly limited).

Conditional damage is interesting, but if given to a class who gains access to lots of variations on conditional damage, it quickly just becomes better damage. So that would be limited by nature.

Utility wise, I'm not 100% clear on. Action economy is at a premium, so a lot of white raven isn't going to make it. Debuffing is something monk is very good at, so I wouldn't except the class to beat open handed monk. Martial healing is a possibility, and buffing is somewhat possible, though the focus on fewer +/- basically limits the majority to advantage granting and damage boosting.

Marking should 100% be used, it is by far the best DMG alternate rule. With that, things get better. A few feats and a few abilities of barbarian and fighter can work with this as well, so I don't see a ton of room for growth.

I don't know, everytime people talk about it I just have trouble seeing these aspects actually make their way into the game in a fun and balanced manner. Alot of what exists is limited for a variety of reasons, some of which isn't going to be fixable by making a new class .

[mr_odd]

Am I one of the only people that feel that the fighter is fine as is? I think that the three archetypes are well balanced and provide a good bit of variety. You also should take into account that martial fighters (in my opinion) get the best magical items - magic weapons.

[Feldarove]

You are not alone, I too like the fighter as is.

A lot of people....ESPECIALLY people on this forum, get excited :smallwink: when even thinking about ToB...so they just want more of it.

[silveralen]

Am I one of the only people that feel that the fighter is fine as is? I think that the three archetypes are well balanced and provide a good bit of variety. You also should take into account that martial fighters (in my opinion) get the best magical items - magic weapons.

I think that battlemaster is a pretty solid conversion of warblade personally. I know some people aren't happy with it, but I'm of the opinion that martial characters should be making normal attacks a fair amount of the time.

Not everyone agrees, and possibly something that could be expanded on with a new class for people unsatisfied with the current system. I don't think constant at will abilities is particularly reasonable, nothing in the game has anything like that. Cantrips are limited in utility. Any at will manuever is going to be mediocre damage with maybe an extremely weak rider.

Lets be honest, tripping an enemy then wailing on them is more than most cantrips can do as is. It just isn't anything "special" so people look down on it.

[mr_odd]

You are not alone, I too like the fighter as is.

A lot of people....ESPECIALLY people on this forum, get excited :smallwink: when even thinking about ToB...so they just want more of it.

I understand the love for ToB in 3.5, they had fighter-esque classes that were worthwhile to play without loading them up in magic. I just don't see the need for it in 5, the fighter has got game now.

[Eslin]

I think that battlemaster is a pretty solid conversion of warblade personally. I know some people aren't happy with it, but I'm of the opinion that martial characters should be making normal attacks a fair amount of the time.

Not everyone agrees, and possibly something that could be expanded on with a new class for people unsatisfied with the current system. I don't think constant at will abilities is particularly reasonable, nothing in the game has anything like that. Cantrips are limited in utility. Any at will manuever is going to be mediocre damage with maybe an extremely weak rider.

Lets be honest, tripping an enemy then wailing on them is more than most cantrips can do as is. It just isn't anything "special" so people look down on it.

So, so much disagreement here. The battlemaster slightly resembles the warblade in the same way that the eldritch knight slightly resembles a wizard - it's a side note on top of a class dedicated to just making attacks.

Well, not quite that similar - an eldritch knight's pool and strength of options increases with level like a wizard's does, while a battlemaster's pool of options actually decreases with level and gets no stronger, quite unlike a warblade.

And yes, nothing in the game has anything like that. Which is why we want the classes, so we can have martials that do things casters can't.


I understand the love for ToB in 3.5, they had fighter-esque classes that were worthwhile to play without loading them up in magic. I just don't see the need for it in 5, the fighter has got game now.
Yes, and we want classes with different game. We're severely lacking in martials with unique in and out of combat options and we don't have a warlord/white raven equivalent at all.

[Windrammer]

Am I one of the only people that feel that the fighter is fine as is? I think that the three archetypes are well balanced and provide a good bit of variety. You also should take into account that martial fighters (in my opinion) get the best magical items - magic weapons.

You can't do any wild and extraordinary things on the level of caster and monks. Eldritch Knight is actually the one that I think had the potential for making a fighter that pulls off awesome late game moves, but unfortunately the spell list is pretty bleak for this.

[Logosloki]

Am I one of the only people that feel that the fighter is fine as is? I think that the three archetypes are well balanced and provide a good bit of variety. You also should take into account that martial fighters (in my opinion) get the best magical items - magic weapons.

Fighter is under-tuned. One of the core problems is that there are so few maneuvers. Consider for example the caster equivalent of the fighter - the warlock. The warlock as a class has a pool of spells, some unique to warlock and some shared by various classes. On top of that each of the warlock sub-classes adds spells which are picked based on theme.

This is essentially what the fighter is lacking. What the fighter and possibly for conservation of page count the ranger and the bard should of got was a pool of maneuvers - some class specific and some shared and then from their sub classes they would gain additional options. So for example, you could make a healing maneuver which bard and ranger have access to but only eldritch knights have access to from the fighter class because it comes from their subclass list rather than from the fighter list.

[silveralen]

So, so much disagreement here. The battlemaster slightly resembles the warblade in the same way that the eldritch knight slightly resembles a wizard - it's a side note on top of a class dedicated to just making attacks.

Well, not quite that similar - an eldritch knight's pool and strength of options increases with level like a wizard's does, while a battlemaster's pool of options actually decreases with level and gets no stronger, quite unlike a warblade.

And yes, nothing in the game has anything like that. Which is why we want the classes, so we can have martials that do things casters can't.

You see, the problem I have actually come to when trying to create one for fun is that having those sort of at will abilities always available is enough for a class as is. It's so powerful in an edition that really put pressure on resources, and you can't justify scaling and expanding martial manuevers equivalent or even similar to spells alongside such abilities.

The best I've come up with is something modeled off the half caster classes, but there trading away damage for utility means cantrips often out damage you. Still, you have interesting at wills with interesting effects, though no damage to speak of, and a more powerful set of expanding options.

The problem is... you really look laughable in a fight on your own. It's much closer to warlord than warblade in that regard, and again why I think a warlord conversion is much more likely. Warblade was a better fighter in 3.5, and I think people expect the same in this edition.

[Eslin]

You see, the problem I have actually come to when trying to create one for fun is that having those sort of at will abilities always available is enough for a class as is. It's so powerful in an edition that really put pressure on resources, and you can't justify scaling and expanding martial manuevers equivalent or even similar to spells alongside such abilities.

The best I've come up with is something modeled off the half caster classes, but there trading away damage for utility means cantrips often out damage you. Still, you have interesting at wills with interesting effects, though no damage to speak of, and a more powerful set of expanding options.

The problem is... you really look laughable in a fight on your own. It's much closer to warlord than warblade in that regard, and again why I think a warlord conversion is much more likely. Warblade was a better fighter in 3.5, and I think people expect the same in this edition.

Well, there's no need for that - the whole point to this kind of thing is you don't have to trade away anything. One of the reasons a wizard is stronger than a fighter is he can prepare animate objects, sleet storm, fireball, black tentacles, fly and suggestion and pick what he spends his spells on, while if he used the martial system he'd be given fireball and suggestion while levelling up and never get access to the rest at all.

A ToB-esque class wouldn't need to trade away damage for utility, he'd have utility abilities and damage abilities and decide which he wanted to use based on the situation. If you have at-will abilities you scale them so the damaging ones do about as much as a fighter does and the utility ones do interesting things that aren't as good as using a spell at the same level.

[Person_Man]

Am I one of the only people that feel that the fighter is fine as is? I think that the three archetypes are well balanced and provide a good bit of variety. You also should take into account that martial fighters (in my opinion) get the best magical items - magic weapons.

So I think it depends on what type of game you're playing.

If you're playing an "old school" style D&D game where there's more of a focus on player skill (as opposed to character abilities), players improvise a lot of actions based on the specifics of the encounter, most of the game time is spent roleplaying and exploring (with combat being relatively brief, regardless of its frequency), class abilities/proficiencies/magic items/etc are more rigidly defined by class, then yeah, the 5E Fighter works just fine, just like the 1E Fighter. (Who literally had zero class abilities other then having the best numbers, magic items, and attracting followers at high level). I grew up playing that style of D&D, and I loved the Fighter in those games. And you can play that type of game using 5E.

But more "modern" roleplaying games, where players focus heavily on optimizing their character abilities, the game itself is more highly codified/legalistic, players depend more heavily on using abilities as written, you spend more of your time in combat, combat itself takes longer to resolve, exploration encounters are quickly resolved by Skills, then having a list of useful/interesting class abilities is more important. For example, why should the Fighter get the best magical weapons? The Bard, Warlock, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, etc, are just as capable at being effective with it given the right build.

[Vogonjeltz]

That really doesn't apply at all. You mostly named actions of unlikely usefulness for specific situations. A martial adept can do something interesting and effective in a dull encounter, that's the point.

I mean, who the hell would light a curtain on fire instead of attacking someone? How often would that really be practical?

Setting the room on fire and fleeing is a fairly effective method of evading someone, especially if they happen to care about the room. Either they give chase to you, abandoning their worldly posessions, or they stay and fight the fire (and possibly die).

There won't be a ToB, it's unecessary bloat.

*Eslin, what do you mean that the Battlemaster doesn't gain improved abilities and options as they level?

[mr_odd]

So I think it depends on what type of game you're playing.

If you're playing an "old school" style D&D game where there's more of a focus on player skill (as opposed to character abilities), players improvise a lot of actions based on the specifics of the encounter, most of the game time is spent roleplaying and exploring (with combat being relatively brief, regardless of its frequency), class abilities/proficiencies/magic items/etc are more rigidly defined by class, then yeah, the 5E Fighter works just fine, just like the 1E Fighter. (Who literally had zero class abilities other then having the best numbers, magic items, and attracting followers at high level). I grew up playing that style of D&D, and I loved the Fighter in those games. And you can play that type of game using 5E.

But more "modern" roleplaying games, where players focus heavily on optimizing their character abilities, the game itself is more highly codified/legalistic, players depend more heavily on using abilities as written, you spend more of your time in combat, combat itself takes longer to resolve, exploration encounters are quickly resolved by Skills, then having a list of useful/interesting class abilities is more important. For example, why should the Fighter get the best magical weapons? The Bard, Warlock, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, etc, are just as capable at being effective with it given the right build.

But where's the adventure in "modern" role-playing games? From your description, it sounds like that style of game has devolved into a video game where you can name your class and come up with a backstory.

And about the magic weapons, I was not marking the case for just fighters, my point was more along the lines that when a martial class receives a magic weapon that they love, they feel amazing constantly using it. Casters on the other hand usually don't have the same kind of love for magic items. Note, I said usually.

Edit: the first point is probably why one of my players (and best friends) disagree so much concerning d&d and my previous thread about "plot magic."

[Eslin]

There won't be a ToB, it's unecessary bloat.
There doesn't need to be a ToB, there does need to be a book containing new martial classes with the same design ethos ToB had (and which carried over to 4e's martial design. Seriously, where's our warlord?)


*Eslin, what do you mean that the Battlemaster doesn't gain improved abilities and options as they level?
I mean that an eldritch knight gains the ability to use some spells a certain amount, and the number of spells available, power of spells and spells per day all increase as the fighter improves. The battlemaster, by comparison, gains 2 superiority dice over the next 17 levels, the pool of available maneuvers gets no deeper or wider and in fact effectively shrinks as you level.


But where's the adventure in "modern" role-playing games? From your description, it sounds like that style of game has devolved into a video game where you can name your class and come up with a backstory.

And about the magic weapons, I was not marking the case for just fighters, my point was more along the lines that when a martial class receives a magic weapon that they love, they feel amazing constantly using it. Casters on the other hand usually don't have the same kind of love for magic items. Note, I said usually.

Edit: the first point is probably why one of my players (and best friends) disagree so much concerning d&d and my previous thread about "plot magic."
Then magic items for casters should start being as varied and as powerful as the magic items for martials are. The discrepency makes no damn sense, 80% of magic weapons are for martials this edition despite the fact that since they're made by casters, it should be the other way around.

The adventure is figuring out ways to succeed in your chosen goals, just as it's always been. Whether those goals are killing a dragon, subverting a kingdom from within, saving a town from a horde of humans, climbing the infernal hierarchy or running a successful fleet of trading ships depends on what kind of game you're playing.

[mr_odd]

Then magic items for casters should start being as varied and as powerful as the magic items for martials are. The discrepency makes no damn sense, 80% of magic weapons are for martials this edition despite the fact that since they're made by casters, it should be the other way around.

The adventure is figuring out ways to succeed in your chosen goals, just as it's always been. Whether those goals are killing a dragon, subverting a kingdom from within, saving a town from a horde of humans, climbing the infernal hierarchy or running a successful fleet of trading ships depends on what kind of game you're playing.

I agree that casters should have varied and unique magical items. When giving magic items, I try to make sure that no one in the party feels left out (that is not to say I'm just throwing magic items around). But there is just simply a connection that martials get with their respective weapon that casters do not seem to replicate with other magic weapons. I have a player who plays a dwarf fighter who got a specialized dwarven war axe (heck, it wasn't even magical really), and he loved it so much, he treasured the thing for a year and a half (in real life). He just gave it up to get an infamous dwarf's war hammer, but he plans on retrieving his axe again in the future. I have never seen a caster have that kind of connection with a magic item.

And I understand where you see the adventure in that aspect, but it just does not seem as rich or full as the "old school" way of playing.

[Eslin]

I agree that casters should have varied and unique magical items. When giving magic items, I try to make sure that no one in the party feels left out (that is not to say I'm just throwing magic items around). But there is just simply a connection that martials get with their respective weapon that casters do not seem to replicate with other magic weapons. I have a player who plays a dwarf fighter who got a specialized dwarven war axe (heck, it wasn't even magical really), and he loved it so much, he treasured the thing for a year and a half (in real life). He just gave it up to get an infamous dwarf's war hammer, but he plans on retrieving his axe again in the future. I have never seen a caster have that kind of connection with a magic item.

And I understand where you see the adventure in that aspect, but it just does not seem as rich or full as the "old school" way of playing.

I'm not seeing the distinction. This old school vs new school thing seems to a completely arbitrary set of differences. Why on earth would optimising your character interfere with exploring or roleplaying?

Magic item wise, I really do think that's because the designers tend to be far, far less creative when creating caster items. When they bother to create them at all they're just +2 to save DCs or something boring, it's hard to get attached to something so uninteresting.

[mr_odd]

I'm not seeing the distinction. This old school vs new school thing seems to a completely arbitrary set of differences. Why on earth would optimising your character interfere with exploring or roleplaying?

Magic item wise, I really do think that's because the designers tend to be far, far less creative when creating caster items. When they bother to create them at all they're just +2 to save DCs or something boring, it's hard to get attached to something so uninteresting.

But it isn't even that. I've already created my fair share of homebrew magic items that are cool for non-martial characters. Casters are like, "cool, I can use this." Martial characters are like, "heck yes, this is awesome."

[Eslin]

But it isn't even that. I've already created my fair share of homebrew magic items that are cool for non-martial characters. Casters are like, "cool, I can use this." Martial characters are like, "heck yes, this is awesome."

Well, our experiences differ then, because both martials and casters seem enamoured with the stuff I created.

[mr_odd]

Well, our experiences differ then, because both martials and casters seem enamoured with the stuff I created.

I don't know how long you have been playing, but I still consider myself and my group relatively new. That may be a factor in our differences of opinion.

[Eslin]

I don't know how long you have been playing, but I still consider myself and my group relatively new. That may be a factor in our differences of opinion.

Ah, ok. If I'm creating magic weapons, I tend to go in for powerful, unique effects - a bow that raises those it slays as undead under the wielder's command, an ethereal whip that damages the enemy's wisdom instead of HP (not on a 1 to 1 ratio obviously), a staff that pushes everything away from it or pulls everything towards it whenever a spell is cast through it, ranging from a gentle shove when a cantrip is used to basically an implosion for a ninth level spell, a skull held in hand that causes all offensive spells to poison their targets. Some are thought to be more memorable than others, but on average there doesn't seem to be a preference for martial or caster weapons.

[mr_odd]

Ah, ok. If I'm creating magic weapons, I tend to go in for powerful, unique effects - a bow that raises those it slays as undead under the wielder's command, an ethereal whip that damages the enemy's wisdom instead of HP (not on a 1 to 1 ratio obviously), a staff that pushes everything away from it or pulls everything towards it whenever a spell is cast through it, ranging from a gentle shove when a cantrip is used to basically an implosion for a ninth level spell, a skull held in hand that causes all offensive spells to poison their targets. Some are thought to be more memorable than others, but on average there doesn't seem to be a preference for martial or caster weapons.

I try to do the same. That same Dwarven fighter has a set of full plate that gives him resistance to fire damage, but it also stores up all of the fire damage it takes and releases it back after a round in a radius of 10 ft.

Another difference may be that while the player who plays the Dwarven fighter let's me create and distribute magic items how I please, while the Goblin Wizard will do a little research to find magic items that he wants, like metamagic rods and then save up to buy them (although that was when we played 3.5).

[Eslin]

I try to do the same. That same Dwarven fighter has a set of full plate that gives him resistance to fire damage, but it also stores up all of the fire damage it takes and releases it back after a round in a radius of 10 ft.

Another difference may be that while the player who plays the Dwarven fighter let's me create and distribute magic items how I please, while the Goblin Wizard will do a little research to find magic items that he wants, like metamagic rods and then save up to buy them (although that was when we played 3.5).

5e's a little different - now that we have bounded accuracy, they don't need to spend their money on items to keep up with the treadmill and I'm free to have unique weapons without the players selling them in order to buy the magic items they need to survive. In 3.5 items that boosted your spells were the second best thing (after items that did things like giving you mind blank and death ward), so your wizard was right to do so.

[silveralen]

Well, there's no need for that - the whole point to this kind of thing is you don't have to trade away anything. One of the reasons a wizard is stronger than a fighter is he can prepare animate objects, sleet storm, fireball, black tentacles, fly and suggestion and pick what he spends his spells on, while if he used the martial system he'd be given fireball and suggestion while levelling up and never get access to the rest at all.

A ToB-esque class wouldn't need to trade away damage for utility, he'd have utility abilities and damage abilities and decide which he wanted to use based on the situation. If you have at-will abilities you scale them so the damaging ones do about as much as a fighter does and the utility ones do interesting things that aren't as good as using a spell at the same level.

Uh, no. You aren't dealing as much as a fighter at will we already established.

If your at will deals fighter level damage and you have utility at wills to boot, why would you get more powerful scaling options when you level? You are already fighter +1 in an edition where fighter is balanced.

You have to trade something away to be balanced with existing classes. You don't seem to grasp that a more powerful fighter isn't needed this time around.

I mean, fighter damage was never even on the table. Paladin or ranger at will damage is the absolute highest such a class might get, and even then they will have to make sacrifices in areas to justify it.

[Eslin]

Uh, no. You aren't dealing as much as a fighter at will we already established.

If your at will deals fighter level damage and you have utility at wills to boot, why would you get more powerful scaling options when you level? You are already fighter +1 in an edition where fighter is balanced.

You have to trade something away to be balanced with existing classes. You don't seem to grasp that a more powerful fighter isn't needed this time around.

I mean, fighter damage was never even on the table. Paladin or ranger at will damage is the absolute highest such a class might get, and even then they will have to make sacrifices in areas to justify it.

Oh yeah, I changed my mind. I noticed that fighter only really had much damage, and realised that the ToB problem still remained - they can't do as much as a caster out of combat, so they should equal a fighter's damage if they choose to focus on damage and have other capabilities. The bar is set too low for martials this edition, you can't keep everything on par with the fighter.

[JoeJ]

No thanks, I'd like to try a martial whose tactical options come from their martial skill and training. Environmental or circumstantial advantage is fun, but the entire point of a ToB-like system is not needing those things to have options.

Whether a druid creates magical spikes, turns into a bear, calls lightning, traps their foes in a sleet storm or summons a horde of animals may differ based on the situation they find themselves in, but they have those abilities regardless. Circumstantial advantage is fun, to my mind a discrete set of tools to capitalise on that advantage or to use when such advantage isn't obtainable is more fun.

Pushing, tripping, grappling, climbing on monsters, disarming, and breaking things are all abilities that any martial character has all the time. Using cantrips is an ability that any character with the right racial background and/or feat has anywhere except inside an anti-magic field.

Since so many of the tactical options that already exist in the game are not what you're interested in, maybe you should post some suggested rules that are the sort of thing you want.

[silveralen]

Oh yeah, I changed my mind. I noticed that fighter only really had much damage, and realised that the ToB problem still remained - they can't do as much as a caster out of combat, so they should equal a fighter's damage if they choose to focus on damage and have other capabilities. The bar is set too low for martials this edition, you can't keep everything on par with the fighter.

Oh okay, sorry, didn't realize you descended to being flat out wrong.

Look at paladin or ranger.

At will damage: Lower than fighter, higher than full caster.

Scaling abilities: More than fighter, less than a full caster.

Versatility? Again, a middle ground.

This class should be balanced alongside them easily. A raner whose abilities aretreated as non magical is pretty much there, except obviously lowering at will damage to make for "interesting" effects.

So if you think paladin and ranger are too weak, which you won't given that they have magic spells and your cognitive bias will literally prevent you from contemplating such a statement, then yes the at will damage will still be lower than fighter, given he already beats both those classes.

[Eslin]

Oh okay, sorry, didn't realize you descended to being flat out wrong.

Look at paladin or ranger.

At will damage: Lower than fighter, higher than full caster.

Scaling abilities: More than fighter, less than a full caster.

Versatility? Again, a middle ground.

This class should be balanced alongside them easily. A raner whose abilities aretreated as non magical is pretty much there, except obviously lowering at will damage to make for "interesting" effects.

So if you think paladin and ranger are too weak, which you won't given that they have magic spells and your cognitive bias will literally prevent you from contemplating such a statement, then yes the at will damage will still be lower than fighter, given he already beats both those classes.

No, I don't think they're particularly weak - it's just in practise a paladin's damage is pretty much equal to a fighters. 3 attacks as opposed to 4, with a persistent 1d8 bonus and enough spell slots to burn regularly for extra damage and attacks from whatever you're using as a mount. Paladins have better burst, fighters have better sustained damage (after all those slots aren't infinite), and paladins have much better utility. All martial classes need to be done to at least the standard of the paladin, which the fighter falls short of.

[silveralen]

No, I don't think they're particularly weak - it's just in practise a ranger's damage is pretty much equal to a fighters. 3 attacks as opposed to 4, with a persistent 1d8 bonus and enough spell slots to burn regularly for extra damage and attacks from whatever you're using as a mount. Paladins have better burst, fighters have better sustained damage (after all those slots aren't infinite), and paladins have much better utility. All martial classes need to be done to at least the standard of the paladin, which the fighter falls short of.

My own experience inclines my to think otherwise, especially the damage totals, but ignoring that...

I agree paladin is well done as a fancier martial class, and I think monk fits the bill as well. Rogue is obvious less focused on in combat options, but it has a lot of interesting things to do.

I disagree in the idea that fighter not having the same breadth is an issue. No need to reinvent the wheel multiple times. Having a basic attack class isn't really a weakness, it just won't appeal to all players. I think that, between Paladin, monk, ranger, barbarian, and fighter, you can find a sword swinger who fits your preferred level of complexity.

Even the magic classes have a range of complexity. Sorcerer and warlock are on the low end, and wizard or druid is at the higher end.

[Eslin]

My own experience inclines my to think otherwise, especially the damage totals, but ignoring that...

I agree paladin is well done as a fancier martial class, and I think monk fits the bill as well. Rogue is obvious less focused on in combat options, but it has a lot of interesting things to do.

I disagree in the idea that fighter not having the same breadth is an issue. No need to reinvent the wheel multiple times. Having a basic attack class isn't really a weakness, it just won't appeal to all players. I think that, between Paladin, monk, ranger, barbarian, and fighter, you can find a sword swinger who fits your preferred level of complexity.

Meant to say paladin, but you seem to have gotten that. And I'm happy for classes like fighter to exist for those who want them, I'm just confused as to why we didn't get a warlord at the very least and at least a couple of martial classes with ToB/4e style tactical options. There's an entire third of the book dedicated to giving casters those options, was creating a smaller set of martial abilities (of a very different nature, obviously) really that hard?

[silveralen]

Meant to say paladin, but you seem to have gotten that. And I'm happy for classes like fighter to exist for those who want them, I'm just confused as to why we didn't get a warlord at the very least and at least a couple of martial classes with ToB/4e style tactical options. There's an entire third of the book dedicated to giving casters those options, was creating a smaller set of martial abilities (of a very different nature, obviously) really that hard?

I don't think the designers realized or anticipated a demand for that in particular. Ranger is really the best example of that, many of his spells are things that would look right at home in 4e or ToB. I don't think they saw lumping such abilities under the generic "spell" section as an issue, as the options were still there. It seems they thought people wanting a warlord character might try valor bard or cleric. They focused on balancing things and expanding magical abilities to everyone, which may not be everyone's cup of tea.

But we've had this discussion at least a half dozen times. I think it works, you don't. Hopefully something like what you want gets into the game eventually, but I think it may be a while.

[Eslin]

I don't think the designers realized or anticipated a demand for that in particular. Ranger is really the best example of that, many of his spells are things that would look right at home in 4e or ToB. I don't think they saw lumping such abilities under the generic "spell" section as an issue, as the options were still there. It seems they thought people wanting a warlord character might try valor bard or cleric. They focused on balancing things and expanding magical abilities to everyone, which may not be everyone's cup of tea.

But we've had this discussion at least a half dozen times. I think it works, you don't. Hopefully something like what you want gets into the game eventually, but I think it may be a while.

Hope not =/. Porting ToB in isn't an exact science, I'd buy the hell out a 5e martial options book.

[silveralen]

Hope not =/. Porting ToB in isn't an exact science, I'd buy the hell out a 5e martial options book.

That's mostly due to the slow release cycle they seem to have planned. Maybe the hypothetical online supplement/dragon magazine if that actually comes back? That's basically your best bet for getting it within the next year.

[Vogonjeltz]

There doesn't need to be a ToB, there does need to be a book containing new martial classes with the same design ethos ToB had (and which carried over to 4e's martial design. Seriously, where's our warlord?)

I didn't play 4e, what things did the warlord do that were so different? Why not just homebrew an archetype that does that for Fighter? (Or whatever class fits best)

I mean, at a minimum to bother making an entire book, we would need a books worth of content. (If only new archetypes, at least one for each class, if new classes at least 3 full classes) I just don't see there being enough distinct and useful material to do that.


I mean that an eldritch knight gains the ability to use some spells a certain amount, and the number of spells available, power of spells and spells per day all increase as the fighter improves. The battlemaster, by comparison, gains 2 superiority dice over the next 17 levels, the pool of available maneuvers gets no deeper or wider and in fact effectively shrinks as you level.

Power of superiority dice and number increase as the Battlemaster (BM) levels. Number of Maneuvers known increases (which is his pool). The total number of spells that exist never changes for the EK either, just access to them. Are you saying the BM should have gated access to certain maneuvers based on level? I suppose we could come up with more powerful maneuvers that can only be taken at a certain level, but I'm not sure what they would be.

I mean, perhaps a maneuver for every possible status effect, or a passive bonus maneuver that increases the duration of other maneuvers. (Opponents are frightened for 2 rounds instead of 1, or some such.)

[Eslin]

I didn't play 4e, what things did the warlord do that were so different? Why not just homebrew an archetype that does that for Fighter? (Or whatever class fits best)

I mean, at a minimum to bother making an entire book, we would need a books worth of content. (If only new archetypes, at least one for each class, if new classes at least 3 full classes) I just don't see there being enough distinct and useful material to do that.
Well, it all ready happened once so obviously that isn't true. Though in 5e I'd like it to be a large part of a martial options kind of book, it's a fun way of playing martial characters but it isn't the only way.

Archetype wise, because there is no class that fits properly. The warlord was a martial leader, just as clerics were divine leaders and bards were arcane leaders - what it did depended on how you built it, but it tended to focus on boosting the attacks of allies, healing them, getting them into position, debuffing enemies - one of their at-will powers simply made had ally within 25 feet make a basic attack. That wouldn't fit in well with any other class, what with the damage of their attacks being a secondary consideration to supporting your allies - what kind of class could you attach that to? In addition, it's at least a big enough role to support a class and several subclasses - off the top of my head one dedicated to leading from the front (bravura), one dedicated to co-ordinating and ranged attacks (skirmisher), inspiring, tactical, insightful, resourceful, whatever. There are easily enough styles of play to support a fully fleshed out class.


Power of superiority dice and number increase as the Battlemaster (BM) levels. Number of Maneuvers known increases (which is his pool). The total number of spells that exist never changes for the EK either, just access to them. Are you saying the BM should have gated access to certain maneuvers based on level? I suppose we could come up with more powerful maneuvers that can only be taken at a certain level, but I'm not sure what they would be.

I mean, perhaps a maneuver for every possible status effect, or a passive bonus maneuver that increases the duration of other maneuvers. (Opponents are frightened for 2 rounds instead of 1, or some such.)
Power you can't access is no power at all - the number of spells an EK has available to increases as they level. Maneuver wise, you could easily invent more powerful maneuvers for higher levels, just as higher level spells have a greater cost in slots. Though honestly the pool isn't as big a deal as I make it out to be, scarcity of maneuver dice is a much bigger issue. The low, attached to regular attacks nature of maneuvers is perfectly suited to a dice per round kind of system but instead they chose to give an limited number of dice that barely increases (2 over 17 levels, wow!)

[Vogonjeltz]

Well, it all ready happened once so obviously that isn't true.

The only thing obvious is that occurred in a different system. TOB is totally unnecessary in 5th edition.


Though in 5e I'd like it to be a large part of a martial options kind of book, it's a fun way of playing martial characters but it isn't the only way.

Archetype wise, because there is no class that fits properly. The warlord was a martial leader, just as clerics were divine leaders and bards were arcane leaders - what it did depended on how you built it, but it tended to focus on boosting the attacks of allies, healing them, getting them into position, debuffing enemies - one of their at-will powers simply made had ally within 25 feet make a basic attack. That wouldn't fit in well with any other class, what with the damage of their attacks being a secondary consideration to supporting your allies - what kind of class could you attach that to? In addition, it's at least a big enough role to support a class and several subclasses - off the top of my head one dedicated to leading from the front (bravura), one dedicated to co-ordinating and ranged attacks (skirmisher), inspiring, tactical, insightful, resourceful, whatever. There are easily enough styles of play to support a fully fleshed out class.

So, the marshal from miniatures handbook? Bards are entertainers, not leaders.


Power you can't access is no power at all - the number of spells an EK has available to increases as they level. Maneuver wise, you could easily invent more powerful maneuvers for higher levels, just as higher level spells have a greater cost in slots. Though honestly the pool isn't as big a deal as I make it out to be, scarcity of maneuver dice is a much bigger issue. The low, attached to regular attacks nature of maneuvers is perfectly suited to a dice per round kind of system but instead they chose to give an limited number of dice that barely increases (2 over 17 levels, wow!)

The number they can pick increases, the sum spell list is however totally static. Instead of being able to pick any their choice is gated. Superiority dice renew on a short rest, not a problem in practice.

[Eslin]

The only thing obvious is that occurred in a different system. TOB is totally unnecessary in 5th edition.
Very much untrue, the reason it was brought up is it's necessary now for much the same reasons it was back then. Of course, it doesn't have to be ToB exactly - the only thing that's really important is the spirit behind the ToB and 4e martial design, that there should be martial characters with just as many choices available to them in combat as a caster has, that they won't have to just say 'I guess I attack again' with a sigh in combat. 5e completely lacks that, the closest it has is the battlemaster which, while fun, gets most of its power from the fighter class and doesn't have enough to spare for versatility and is very generic in its abilities by design.


So, the marshal from miniatures handbook? Bards are entertainers, not leaders.
Like the martial in concept, yes, if not in playstyle. Martials were basically just aura machines, warlords tended to focus on active abilities - instead of an aura which gives your allies bonus damage, you might have an attack that increases the damage your target takes from ally attacks by your int modifier. Depending on the abilities you picked and the choices you made the warlord was good at healing allies, repositioning them, debuffing enemies, buffing allies, making enemies target him and granting extra attacks - there's definitely room for one in 5e.

Regarding bards being 'entertainers, not leaders' - maybe Elan is more one than the other, but a bard tends to be an ideal leader, they have high charisma and spells/abilities that support allies. Though it should be noted I meant 'leader' in the 4e sense is a group term that is applied to characters that primarily gain their power through others, usually with buffs or heals - cleric, artificer, shaman, bard etc.


The number they can pick increases, the sum spell list is however totally static. Instead of being able to pick any their choice is gated. Superiority dice renew on a short rest, not a problem in practice.
The sum spell list is only important in terms of the number of options you have to pick from. This means that every couple of levels, the available pool of spells increases. And it really does seem a problem - the maneuvers aren't abilities on their own, they're the kind of thing you should be using once or twice per attack and yet you're getting 6 dice per short rest when the equivalent monk has 20, DMG says two short rests a day. They could have been given 2-10 dice or a free die each round that lasts until the start of your next turn and it wouldn't unbalance things.

[silveralen]

they won't have to just say 'I guess I attack again' with a sigh in combat. 5e completely lacks that, the closest it has is the battlemaster which, while fun, gets most of its power from the fighter class and doesn't have enough to spare for versatility and is very generic in its abilities by design.

And it really does seem a problem - the maneuvers aren't abilities on their own, they're the kind of thing you should be using once or twice per attack and yet you're getting 6 dice per short rest when the equivalent monk has 20, DMG says two short rests a day.

To be fair, it kinda does exist. As you point out yourself, monk basically does that.

In fact, of any class, monk is the class least likely to fall back on unmodified attacks. Casters will be tossing the same cantrip over and over, maybe varying between two cantrips at high levels once he has a few cantrips available. That's "I attack" hidden behind the same spell.

Fighter is more like warlock, in that yes most of the time he ends up using his normal attack. He still has variety though.

In fact, 12-18 dice over the course of the day is more than most casters will be tossing around in combat, especially when you factor in the fact a lvl 1 or even lvl 2 slot isn't doing much of anything by lvl 15+.

Nothing battle master does should be happening twice per turn every turn. It's a bit beyond 5e's power level.

[Eslin]

To be fair, it kinda does exist. As you point out yourself, monk basically does that.

In fact, of any class, monk is the class least likely to fall back on unmodified attacks. Casters will be tossing the same cantrip over and over, maybe varying between two cantrips at high levels once he has a few cantrips available. That's "I attack" hidden behind the same spell.

Fighter is more like warlock, in that yes most of the time he ends up using his normal attack. He still has variety though.

In fact, 12-18 dice over the course of the day is more than most casters will be tossing around in combat, especially when you factor in the fact a lvl 1 or even lvl 2 slot isn't doing much of anything by lvl 15+.

Nothing battle master does should be happening twice per turn every turn. It's a bit beyond 5e's power level.

It kind of does that, and I love the monk, along with the paladin it's very well designed for a martial this edition.

The dice don't equal a spell, though. That's fine, they don't need to, they're an actionless addition to an attack, but spending a die is not equal to casting a spell.

And twice per turn is perhaps a little over the top, which is why in my games they get one die at the start of each turn that lasts until the start of the next turn and 1-3 dice that can be used any time that come back after a short rest. One maneuver a round with the option to spend them all to burst has proven to be absolutely not game breaking at all, though I do need to find a way of altering the system so it scales better with fighter levels (just as the current battlemaster is now, it's really good early and doesn't scale much).

[silveralen]

It kind of does that, and I love the monk, along with the paladin it's very well designed for a martial this edition.

The dice don't equal a spell, though. That's fine, they don't need to, they're an actionless addition to an attack, but spending a die is not equal to casting a spell.

And twice per turn is perhaps a little over the top, which is why in my games they get one die at the start of each turn that lasts until the start of the next turn and 1-3 dice that can be used any time that come back after a short rest. One maneuver a round with the option to spend them all to burst has proven to be absolutely not game breaking at all, though I do need to find a way of altering the system so it scales better with fighter levels (just as the current battlemaster is now, it's really good early and doesn't scale much).

That sounds pretty decent for what you want. I'm not sure every manuever is balanced for that sort of usage, but for a few it's not all that different than normal.