There, I fixed it for you.

[Madfellow]

Given that a good portion of the community is unsatisfied with the way martial characters turned out in 5th, there appears to be a certain demand for some kind of homebrew fix. Most proposals so far have been somewhat vague and speculative in nature. This post is intended to offer the community a solution that is concrete, but also simple and elegant.

A disclaimer: This post is not meant as a concession that martial characters need fixing. Until one of the martial character players in my group comes to me saying they feel useless or outclassed, I will assume otherwise.

For the rest of you, I present this feat:

The Rule of Cool
Prerequisite: a combined total of 16 levels in the barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, and/or rogue classes. A character capable of casting spells of 6th level or higher cannot take this feat, and loses this feat if he or she ever gains the ability to cast spells of 6th level or higher.

Through intense martial training and experience, you have obtained feats of power that ordinary folk can only dream of. As part of another action, you can replicate the effects of the Wish spell. Once you use this ability, you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

[Kyutaru]

"Oh look, an army of goblins."

The valiant hero known as Sir Robin quickly assessed his surroundings. Picking up the nearby bucket of water, he tossed it across the floor the goblins would be approaching on. Grabbing the nearby unconscious wizard's staff of lightning, he touched the water and declared his Chain Lightning to be complete.

Sir Gregor, the less valiant fighter, was not to be outdone. He grabbed the nearest remaining goblin by the testicles and whispered something into its ear, causing the beast to go white with terror. After being released, the goblin then assaulted its own allies in a desperate fury while the dark knight admired his makeshift Dominate spell.

[Madfellow]

"Oh look, an army of goblins."

The valiant hero known as Sir Robin quickly assessed his surroundings. Picking up the nearby bucket of water, he tossed it across the floor the goblins would be approaching on. Grabbing the nearby unconscious wizard's staff of lightning, he touched the water and declared his Chain Lightning to be complete.

Sir Gregor, the less valiant fighter, was not to be outdone. He grabbed the nearest remaining goblin by the testicles and whispered something into its ear, causing the beast to go white with terror. After being released, the goblin then assaulted its own allies in a desperate fury while the dark knight admired his makeshift Dominate spell.

In essence, yes. That seems to be what the folks around here want, so that's what I offer.

[pwykersotz]

Bah, not nearly enough. Behold:


Cry About It

The gods weep, the sky opens above you as a rain of tears pours down, and you succeed at your task.

Anytime you feel outclassed due to lacking spells, you cry pitifully at the GM, spilling tears into his cheetos. Through sheer pity and annoyance, he allows you to succeed just to get the game going again. You automatically succeed your next attempted action.

:smalltongue:

[Madfellow]

Bah, not nearly enough. Behold:

:smalltongue:

You're right, that's better. What was I thinking? :smallsmile:

[Feldarove]

Does anyone else have a d&d group whose members enjoy watching other player's be badasses? My group sorta accepts our roles and gets excited when the Barbarian smashes something with an axe as well as when the wizard blast something with a fireball.

[GiantOctopodes]

Does anyone else have a d&d group whose members enjoy watching other player's be badasses? My group sorta accepts our roles and gets excited when the Barbarian smashes something with an axe as well as when the wizard blast something with a fireball.

Yeah, that's definitely true in my group. Since we're, you know, a team, with in theory the entire universe pitted against us, we tend to simply celebrate the successes and abilities of each other, and with the notable exception of one exceptionally whiny player, when someone is found to have great skill and power, we're usually excited about it. Part of it is likely due to the characters with the potentially strongest classes (druid and wizard in our group) playing their characters the most ineffectually, and us still being low level, but all of this caster vs martial "gap" has not been a real thing in any way shape or form in my campaign so far.

[Eslin]

Does anyone else have a d&d group whose members enjoy watching other player's be badasses? My group sorta accepts our roles and gets excited when the Barbarian smashes something with an axe as well as when the wizard blast something with a fireball.

Yes. Most of the reason I'm annoyed with how things turned out, because it turns out that when you have a wide variety of options it's much easier to be a badass - 'that spiked growth spell I cast basically trapped that entire group' is a lot more badass than 'I guess since it's literally my only effective option aside from wrestling, I attack again'.

[Pex]

Many people aren't going to be happy until classes have the following class features:

Fighter

Level 1 Ability: Yes I Can

Yes I Can: Whatever it is you want to do, you can do it. Need to fly to fight a monster? Go right ahead. A demon tries to Dominate you? Automatically make your will save! Want to trip something? Who cares how many legs it has it's tripped and can do absolutely nothing for the next round while you pummel it. You can do absolutely anything! Congratulations!

Wizard

Level 1 Ability: Cast 1 spell

Only one spell exists in the game. The spell is called DM May I

DM May I
Casting time: 1 full round (In 5E terms, your Action + Move Action + Bonus Action + Reaction)
Material Components: V, S, M (Any non-artifact non-cursed item worth at least 1,000 gp that is consumed in the casting.)

When you cast this spell you ask the DM for something to happen that will help the party. The DM decides what the exact effect it. You have no say whatsoever on what the effect is. Alternatively, you may ask the DM for an effect that would be harmful against an opponent. The DM can outright refuse and the spell fails. Otherwise, the DM decides what the exact effect is that hurts the opponent. At his discretion the DM may or may not tell you what it is if it's not obvious in effect. If you cast this spell to ask the DM for something to happen that will help you personally and directly, the spell automatically fails and at his whim the DM may deny you the ability to cast any spell whatsoever ever again.

Cleric

Level 1 ability: Heal

Heal: When not in combat you may use this ability to heal hit points of any character. The amount of hit points you heal is up to the DM based on his mood at the moment of how gritty he wants the game to be. During combat, this ability cannot be used nor can you do anything else.

Rogue

Level 1 ability: Something To Do

Something To Do: You can ask the DM for the ability to do anything non-magical or know any particular information. The DM may or may not decide to let you do it or know the information as he sees fit for the particular moment in the game.

The party is always level 1. No XP. No Magic Items. No Ability Score can ever be above 15 and only two scores can be 12 or higher.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Man, that person who actually posted stuff like this sure is refuted! Now I just have to go find him.

[Eslin]

See, these are pretty boring. The key is having a costed, discrete set of abilities that reward the player when put to creative use and allow for several useful possible actions in combat.

[unwise]

One of the many things I liked about having roles in 4e was that there was a near complete disconnect between what party members did. The leader could do amazing things and the tank never felt that it stepped on their toes, rather it made them better. The controller could daze a huge group but the striker was just happy as it made it easier for them to stab things.

So far my players have taken that attitude over to 5e. If anything, the casters feel that they are the servants of the group. The group is forever saying, "no, don't cast that one yet, we want it later" it kind of feels like 'casting by committee'. The wizard feels that webbing a group of enemies just makes the archer rock, the cleric feels that buffing the fighter just makes the fighter kick as. The casters kind of want to do things for themselves, but that is inefficient. At least blasting spells are better in this edition, so they are somewhat viable.

A lot of the suggestions to give martials fantastic abilities just don't fit in a non wuxia/mythological game. I talked to my players about it and the ones that chose martial characters said they chose them because they did not want all that wierd stuff. One due to complexity, the other because they like playing a character that is 'heroic' and to them that means not 'cheating and using magic' and being relatable.

That being said, the same people loved some of the Star Wars EotE abilities like "leave combat for two turns, during that time you kill every minion in the battle, dictate how" and "you cannot go below 5HP in the next 4 rounds, dictate how you survive". Despite the OP not appearing 100% serious, I think something like his suggestion could work well in some campaigns.

[Madfellow]

Despite the OP not appearing 100% serious, I think something like his suggestion could work well in some campaigns.

I was only half joking. Based on the conversations around here, it does basically sound like The Rule of Cool is what people are asking for. And like I said, I don't really see the need for it. If someone wants to play a superhero Fighter, more power to them. My group and my campaign are just fine as they are right now.

[Palegreenpants]

Wait, so some people are upset because martial classes don't do magic-y Jazz? Why not just keep attacking, grappling, cleaving, disarming, and bull-rushing?

[Eslin]

Wait, so some people are upset because martial classes don't do magic-y Jazz? Why not just keep attacking, grappling, cleaving, disarming, and bull-rushing?

Because the first is boring when it's all you can do, the second is actually quite good, the third isn't a thing, the fourth is DM fiat unless you have one specific ability from a subclass and the fifth is usually a waste of an action.

Even if those were all viable choices they would tally up to far less to choose from than a caster gets. Able to do unique things =/= magic.

[Madfellow]

Because the first is boring when it's all you can do, the second is actually quite good, the third isn't a thing, the fourth is DM fiat unless you have one specific ability from a subclass and the fifth is usually a waste of an action.

Even if those were all viable choices they would tally up to far less to choose from than a caster gets. Able to do unique things =/= magic.

Attacking is not the only thing a martial character can do.
Cleaving is a thing; it's in the DMG.
So is disarming.
Bull rushing depends on the circumstances.
Also in the DMG: climbing onto a bigger creature (Shadow of the Colossus style), marking (4e style), overrunning, tumbling, and an ability called Shove Aside that basically amounts to a b**** slap. These didn't make it into the PHB because WotC didn't feel they were necessary for the game to function.
The difference between martials and casters, as everyone knows, is how often each one gets to be awesome. Martials are awesome all the time, casters get spikes of awesome every so often.

[Palegreenpants]

Because the first is boring when it's all you can do, the second is actually quite good, the third isn't a thing, the fourth is DM fiat unless you have one specific ability from a subclass and the fifth is usually a waste of an action.

Even if those were all viable choices they would tally up to far less to choose from than a caster gets. Able to do unique things =/= magic.

I cannot fully agree with that statement. Martial characters have a nice range of options. All of the actions I mentioned are present in either the DMG or the PHB.

[Feldarove]

You can cleave with a feat too!

[archaeo]

One thing that's always confusing: why not just, you know, not play a martial character if lack of options bums you out?

The common response: "But I want to play a fighter, not a wizard"! But this is 5e? A valor bard is a full caster that can fight. Paladins are really, really good, and not bound by alignment. Or, you don't want magic at all? Great, here's the assassin rogue, who can pump out ridiculous damage, has unique abilities that can't be replicated with magic, and will end the game as a very capable skill monkey. And if all that isn't enough, heck, I'd say to my player, "Ok, you can play something that is mechanically identical to the wizard, but all your spells are just the abilities you learn from your sword or whatever, and you have to take a level of fighter at the outset."

Given that there are so many ways to avoid playing a boring fighter if that's what you think they are, what's the problem? At this point, the only reason to argue about it is to enjoy the kvetching about game design, which, I guess, at least provides Mr. Burlew with some page views.

[Inchoroi]

I'm currently on my fourth 5e game (two as a player, two as a DM), and in every aspect, every martial character never felt like they were lacking at all. In fact, some of the coolest stuff done was done by a thief rogue. I think its more of a player/DM issue than a mechanical one; martial characters need players willing to push out there and be awesome.

[Eslin]

One thing that's always confusing: why not just, you know, not play a martial character if lack of options bums you out?

The common response: "But I want to play a fighter, not a wizard"! But this is 5e? A valor bard is a full caster that can fight. Paladins are really, really good, and not bound by alignment. Or, you don't want magic at all? Great, here's the assassin rogue, who can pump out ridiculous damage, has unique abilities that can't be replicated with magic, and will end the game as a very capable skill monkey. And if all that isn't enough, heck, I'd say to my player, "Ok, you can play something that is mechanically identical to the wizard, but all your spells are just the abilities you learn from your sword or whatever, and you have to take a level of fighter at the outset."

Given that there are so many ways to avoid playing a boring fighter if that's what you think they are, what's the problem? At this point, the only reason to argue about it is to enjoy the kvetching about game design, which, I guess, at least provides Mr. Burlew with some page views.

Because I want my players to have martial options? Seriously, in 3.5 until stuff like ToB happened the most all around competent martial was a caster who decided to slum it in melee. We already know there are ways of having balanced, purely martial character with a wide range of tactical options, they've done it for the last two editions. And there is no reason to make a martial mechanically identical to a wizard, designing different subsystems is easy.

Once again, the problem is I want to be able to achieve extraordinary things without magic. You can want the same amount of tactical choice a wizard has without wanting to be a wizard, you know.

[silveralen]

Does anyone else have a d&d group whose members enjoy watching other player's be badasses? My group sorta accepts our roles and gets excited when the Barbarian smashes something with an axe as well as when the wizard blast something with a fireball.

Yes, most of groups exist as such. Just as most groups don't actively prevent party members from contributing. Some people enjoy complaining about theoretical problems.


Once again, the problem is I want to be able to achieve extraordinary things without magic. You can want the same amount of tactical choice a wizard has without wanting to be a wizard, you know.

You want to play a multiclass rogue/fighter then. Or maybe Rogue/Barbarian. Hey, it was good enough for Conan!

[Eslin]

Yes, most of groups exist as such. Just as most groups don't actively prevent party members from contributing. Some people enjoy complaining about theoretical problems.

You want to play a multiclass rogue/fighter then. Or maybe Rogue/Barbarian. Hey, it was good enough for Conan!
Why would anyone want to prevent party members from contributing? I just notice martial characters being able to contribute far less is all.

Neither of those will give anywhere near the amount of tactical options.

Put it like this. You have a wizard, he needs to kill a guy. He might throw fire or lightning at him, might summon elementals to kill him, might animate a bunch of knives, mind control him or levitate him up and down like fake Moody with a ferret. Different tactical options, variety in what he can do so a player gets the chance to think and enjoy the fight.

Now replace him with a fighter. He has a sword, the other guy has a sword. In a movie, that'd be entertaining enough by itself because you could see them dodging, parrying, thrusting etc and that would be exciting, but in D&D it basically gets represented by saying 'I attack' over and over and seeing whose dice are better. I will be satisfied once there are martials with ToB/4e style options who in that swordfight, without relying on circumstance, has a bunch of different ways to do things. With the ToB those options were manticore parry, mountain avalanche, bonesplitting strike, death from above, exorcism of steel, daunting strike. In 4e they were slash and pummel, reaping strike, shield riposte, harrier's ploy, boundless endurance, rain of blows, pinning smash. We know they know how to write this stuff, they know there are plenty of players who enjoy it, I have no idea why the closest we got was the pathetic battlemaster subclass.

[Madfellow]

I have no idea why the closest we got was the pathetic battlemaster subclass.

And I have no idea why people call the Battlemaster "pathetic." Seriously, what is wrong with it?

[Shadow]

And I have no idea why people call the Battlemaster "pathetic." Seriously, what is wrong with it?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with it.
The problem isn't BM. The problem is that certain DMs allow literally anything that their players want.
Twin scorching ray? -sure, why not!
Let your horse cast cone of cold? -sounds fair to me!
[insert other ridiculous crap here]

Then, since they allow pretty much anything with magic, they want to allow pretty much anything with martials.
Fighter with a quarterstaff & shield, dueling style, polearm master and shield master feats, and full compliment of maneuvers from battle master.... whelp, unfortunately that's still weaksauce compared to magic having zero limits because certain DMs don't know how to say No.

They abuse the system as players and allow their players to abuse they systems when behind the screen. And when things start getting abused martial characters feel useless and lacking options in comparison.

[silveralen]

And I have no idea why people call the Battlemaster "pathetic." Seriously, what is wrong with it?

Relies on basic attacks for much of the fight seems to be the gist of it.

[bloodshed343]

And I have no idea why people call the Battlemaster "pathetic." Seriously, what is wrong with it?

It fails at emulating either the 4e fighter/warlord or the earlier martial options.

[Madfellow]

It fails at emulating either the 4e fighter/warlord or the earlier martial options.

Ah, so people are comparing BM to the ToB and the 4e fighter, which were built in different systems with different power levels and balancing mechanics. Everything (casters included) is less powerful if you compare it to the last two editions.

[bloodshed343]

Ah, so people are comparing BM to the ToB and the 4e fighter, which were built in different systems with different power levels and balancing mechanics. Everything (casters included) is less powerful if you compare it to the last two editions.

Not comparing power levels, here. We're comparing number of options, or in other words, how many at-level challenges do you have the tools to solve. In 4e, fighters and warlords could solve multiple tactical problems. The 5e battle master has a very narrow range of options compared to the 4e fighter, and a pitifully small repertoire compared to the warlord.

[Eslin]

And I have no idea why people call the Battlemaster "pathetic." Seriously, what is wrong with it?

4 superiority dice over the first 3 levles, gains 2 over the next 17 levels. Starts with a pool of 16 maneuvers to choose from, at level 7 you have 13 to choose from, at 10 you have 11 to choose from, at 15 you have 9 to choose from...

I like the idea of the subclass - take a fighter, keep the martial strength, add ability to give his attacks various riders. Cool as hell, love playing it early on. But scaling's horrible - at level 4, you and a monk both have 4 points to spend per short rest. At level 20, a monk has 20 points and you have... 6. Everyone else gets better and more abilities as they level, your pool of available abilities actually shrinks. Give it better scaling (2->10 rather than 4->6, say, or maybe one superiority die usable each round that expires on your next turn and a base of 1-5 die that can be used any time) and/or new maneuvers as it levels and it's perfect.

The other thing that pisses me off is that people keep on pretending that it in some way fills the same niche as a warlord or ToB class, which it really doesn't. The idea of not getting several new classes because this poorly thought out piece of crap is a substitute is a frightening one. Hopefully that's not how it works out, I have hope that the designers aren't that dumb, but the idea grates on my nerves.


Relies on basic attacks for much of the fight seems to be the gist of it.
Basic attacks with rider effects is a cool idea for a subclass. It's the scaling and people claiming it's a replacement for an initiator or warlord, which it clearly isn't.


Absolutely nothing is wrong with it.
The problem isn't BM. The problem is that certain DMs allow literally anything that their players want.
Twin scorching ray? -sure, why not!
Let your horse cast cone of cold? -sounds fair to me!
[insert other ridiculous crap here]

Then, since they allow pretty much anything with magic, they want to allow pretty much anything with martials.
Fighter with a quarterstaff & shield, dueling style, polearm master and shield master feats, and full compliment of maneuvers from battle master.... whelp, unfortunately that's still weaksauce compared to magic having zero limits because certain DMs don't know how to say No.

They abuse the system as players and allow their players to abuse they systems when behind the screen. And when things start getting abused martial characters feel useless and lacking options in comparison.
Bardic doublecasting only works on self targeted spells, which we've established the AOE spells are not. Scorching ray can be made to target a single enemy, so twinning it makes perfect sense.


Ah, so people are comparing BM to the ToB and the 4e fighter, which were built in different systems with different power levels and balancing mechanics. Everything (casters included) is less powerful if you compare it to the last two editions.
We're talking options, not power. 3.5 has already shown us how that works out - a 3000 damage chargebarian is technically powerful, but boring as hell to play. Versatility and options are fun, and power is far more enjoyable when it's as a result of using the tools available to you in a clever way rather than just +numbers.

[archaeo]

Because I want my players to have martial options?

Did you not read the list you just quoted? If a player wants some kind of tactically rich martial character, there are options in 5e, as you've previously conceded. You are basically complaining that your players won't want to take the two simplest options in the PHB, the two that are all but openly designed to be newbie options. Otherwise, play one of the numerous martial or martial-ish classes that provide all the buttons you could ever hope to push!


Seriously, in 3.5 until stuff like ToB happened the most all around competent martial was a caster who decided to slum it in melee. We already know there are ways of having balanced, purely martial character with a wide range of tactical options, they've done it for the last two editions. And there is no reason to make a martial mechanically identical to a wizard, designing different subsystems is easy.

But they did design different subsystems. You just don't like them. ToB is a fairly hefty supplement that I think Mearls himself referred to as a kind of proto-4e, and all 4e really does is dress up the fighter with a bunch of Naurto-style attacks they call out that aren't really all that mechanically different from what a 5e fighter can do.

edited to add: not that that's a bad thing! 4e's a fun and cool game that fun and cool people play.


Once again, the problem is I want to be able to achieve extraordinary things without magic. You can want the same amount of tactical choice a wizard has without wanting to be a wizard, you know.

What does tactical choice even mean? Even a champion fighter, in the hands of a competent player, will be maneuvering to get advantage from terrain or by making ability checks, using alternate attacks, and picking feats to become more specialized. Out of combat, in addition to being a set of stats, they're also a whole person, with a backstory, connections, and purpose. There's a lot of meat there in addition to being the easy option for newbies, a class archetype the system needs to have.

[Shadow]

What does tactical choice even mean?

It means they want special snowflake abilities with special snowflake names, but they won't admit that almost every single thing that they might want to accomplish via their amazing special snowflake abilities are already covered under maneuvers.

[Eslin]

Did you not read the list you just quoted? If a player wants some kind of tactically rich martial character, there are options in 5e, as you've previously conceded. You are basically complaining that your players won't want to take the two simplest options in the PHB, the two that are all but openly designed to be newbie options. Otherwise, play one of the numerous martial or martial-ish classes that provide all the buttons you could ever hope to push!
Show me one that actually make that swordfight I mentioned earlier interesting.


But they did design different subsystems. You just don't like them. ToB is a fairly hefty supplement that I think Mearls himself referred to as a kind of proto-4e, and all 4e really does is dress up the fighter with a bunch of Naurto-style attacks they call out that aren't really all that mechanically different from what a 5e fighter can do
I... what? I've never watched whatever Naurto is, but since when is anyone required to 'call out' their attacks? And they are incredibly mechanically different from the 5e fighter. The battlemaster would have been a fun imitation if not for its ridiculously poor scaling, but the chief difference is having actual abilities, instead of just maneuvering to get advantage on your roll - please observe the wizard's options for what this feels like in terms of choice.[/QUOTE]


What does tactical choice even mean? Even a champion fighter, in the hands of a competent player, will be maneuvering to get advantage from terrain or by making ability checks, using alternate attacks, and picking feats to become more specialized. Out of combat, in addition to being a set of stats, they're also a whole person, with a backstory, connections, and purpose. There's a lot of meat there in addition to being the easy option for newbies, a class archetype the system needs to have.
You can't pick feats in combat. The situation I described earlier makes a perfect example of the difference - you're duelling a character with a sword. If you use a wizard, you can turn into something scary, freeze him, pick him up and toss him with your mind, summon creatures to attack, etc etc. Outside of the environment you have a bunch of choices that come from your character, a large variety of tactical options. You still have the ability to use your environment, circumstance, ability checks etc to gain advantages but on top of that you have a bunch of different ways of attacking that come from your character.

A champion in that same swordfight's only option to deal any damage is to say 'I attack' for the third time in the last minute and roll that tenth d20. Both ToB and 4e made that fight more interesting by giving martial characters a variety of different options - a 4e in that fighter might use shield feint to make sure the next attack hit, then steel serpent strike to keep the foe from getting away and follow up with an insightful strike once the foe is bloodied (does more damage to a wounded foe). That's only a vague plan, though - the fighter would have to change tactics based on what his foe was doing, and all of this makes for a much more interesting fight. The damage might not be any higher than a champion just saying 'I attack' over and over, but the player feels more rewarded because their power came from using their abilities intelligently and it feels so much better. Even using ability checks, environment etc a swordfight feels like two final fantasy characters pressing attack and slashing at each other until one runs out of health when you do it the champion way, ToB/4e style tactical options make it feel like a cinematic cut-and-thrust swordfight.


It means they want special snowflake abilities with special snowflake names, but they won't admit that almost every single thing that they might want to accomplish via their amazing special snowflake abilities are already covered under maneuvers.
Battlemaster's crap, the scaling is ridiculously poorly thought out. Fun early, runs out in a single turn late. The best way of doing the system is to name abilities, but you will notice every other ability in the game has a name as well.

[Pex]

A champion in that same swordfight's only option to deal any damage is to say 'I attack' for the third time in the last minute and roll that tenth d20. Both ToB and 4e made that fight more interesting by giving martial characters a variety of different options - a 4e in that fighter might use shield feint to make sure the next attack hit, then steel serpent strike to keep the foe from getting away and follow up with an insightful strike once the foe is bloodied (does more damage to a wounded foe). That's only a vague plan, though - the fighter would have to change tactics based on what his foe was doing, and all of this makes for a much more interesting fight. The damage might not be any higher than a champion just saying 'I attack' over and over, but the player feels more rewarded because their power came from using their abilities intelligently and it feels so much better. Even using ability checks, environment etc a swordfight feels like two final fantasy characters pressing attack and slashing at each other until one runs out of health when you do it the champion way, ToB/4e style tactical options make it feel like a cinematic cut-and-thrust swordfight.


This argument comes up again and again. The Champion is simple. It's by design to be simple. Some players want that simplicity. If it's boring for you play a different warrior class. The only defense the Champion needs is if its math works with 5E's math. It does. Players who want simplicity, go! Those looking for fun of managing ability resources can play other warrior classes. For some, whatever Battle Master and Eldritch Knight provides is enough.

Edit: There is a point to poor scaling with the Battle Master. At the higher levels you're just picking maneuvers from the same list at level 3 you didn't want then. Spellcasters get higher level spells. At level 15 you're picking your 8th and 9th favorite maneuvers of what ever is left you never wanted. Spellcasters are agonizing over what 8th level spell to take.

[Shadow]

Edit: There is a point to poor scaling with the Battle Master. At the higher levels you're just picking maneuvers from the same list at level 3 you didn't want then. Spellcasters get higher level spells. At level 15 you're picking your 8th and 9th favorite maneuvers of what ever is left you never wanted. Spellcasters are agonizing over what 8th level spell to take.

Scaling isn't the issue. Maneuvers don't scale at all, and they weren't intended to (the die increase is almost irrelevant so as to not even count). They don't need to scale because they're simply riders on your attacks.
A few more options are all that's in order, and I'm sure we'll see more eventually.

But I believe the main argument with the lack of scaling refers to the number of superiority dice, not to the maneuvers themselves. People often cite monk's Ki as a basis for comparison, but that comparison is flawed in my opinion. Monks' Ki abilities don't all cost a single point. Sometimes tey cost many, many points (in the case of four winds) whereas maneuvers never cost more than one die.

[GiantOctopodes]

This argument comes up again and again. The Champion is simple. It's by design to be simple. Some players want that simplicity. If it's boring for you play a different warrior class. The only defense the Champion needs is if its math works with 5E's math. It does. Players who want simplicity, go! Those looking for fun of managing ability resources can play other warrior classes. For some, whatever Battle Master and Eldritch Knight provides is enough.

Edit: There is a point to poor scaling with the Battle Master. At the higher levels you're just picking maneuvers from the same list at level 3 you didn't want then. Spellcasters get higher level spells. At level 15 you're picking your 8th and 9th favorite maneuvers of what ever is left you never wanted. Spellcasters are agonizing over what 8th level spell to take.

I must disagree with you on the Champion's math working with 5e's math. Since the only thing increased on a crit are the dice involved, not straight modifiers, and since the Champion doesn't get anything which increases the impact of those crits (like brutal critical) but just an increase to the range, and since no two fighting styles can be combined for increased damage the increase in expected damage is almost exactly equivalent to getting a +1 weapon. Basically, if the Eldritch Knight just uses Magic Weapon, and no other spells, he has tied the expected damage increase of the champion. Sure, you can always use Champion with a magic weapon, and sure, you get a couple other nice perks (a second fighting style which is almost guaranteed to be +1 AC, the equivalent of a very limited form of the Heroism spell as a capstone, and an extremely limited form of the Jack of all trades ability), so it's not as bad as I make it sound.

However, the fact remains that the Champion is often touted as being great for those who want to hit enemies hard and often. You don't get any accuracy bonuses, and you don't get any improvements to the crits you are getting mildly more often, so from a damage standpoint, it's really not all that hard or often. It's precisely because of the math, really, that I consider it the weakest subclass in the game, not because of the simplicity of it.

Edit:

Scaling isn't the issue. Maneuvers don't scale at all, and they weren't intended to (the die increase is almost irrelevant so as to not even count). They don't need to scale because they're simply riders on your attacks.
A few more options are all that's in order, and I'm sure we'll see more eventually.

But I believe the main argument with the lack of scaling refers to the number of superiority dice, not to the maneuvers themselves. People often cite monk's Ki as a basis for comparison, but that comparison is flawed in my opinion. Monks' Ki abilities don't all cost a single point. Sometimes tey cost many, many points (in the case of four winds) whereas maneuvers never cost more than one die.

Yes, but there is something to be said for comparing comparables. The Monk can Push, Trip, or deny reactions to up to 2 targets, for 1/2 a ki point each. They can stun for 1 ki point, and get deflect arrows, an improved version of parry in virtually every way, for either free or 1 ki point for an extra attack. They can spend a single ki point to increase the range of all attacks for the turn (vs just a single attack) by 10 feet (vs 5 feet). I'm not saying battle master is worthless, at all, but I am saying that the resource consumption is not comparable. The abilities that cost multiple points of ki are *far* more impactful than the maneuvers, things like "give the enemy a save or die effect as a rider to an existing attack, where you can trade an action to either kill them, or inflict on average 55 damage in exchange for an action" or "deal huge AOE damage" or "gain resistance to nonmagical weapons for up to an hour".

[Eslin]

This argument comes up again and again. The Champion is simple. It's by design to be simple. Some players want that simplicity. If it's boring for you play a different warrior class. The only defense the Champion needs is if its math works with 5E's math. It does. Players who want simplicity, go! Those looking for fun of managing ability resources can play other warrior classes. For some, whatever Battle Master and Eldritch Knight provides is enough.

Edit: There is a point to poor scaling with the Battle Master. At the higher levels you're just picking maneuvers from the same list at level 3 you didn't want then. Spellcasters get higher level spells. At level 15 you're picking your 8th and 9th favorite maneuvers of what ever is left you never wanted. Spellcasters are agonizing over what 8th level spell to take.

I didn't mention the champion until Archaeo used it as the example - the champion is, indeed, there for simplicity. I'd never play it myself, but I'm happy it's there for those who want it.


Scaling isn't the issue. Maneuvers don't scale at all, and they weren't intended to (the die increase is almost irrelevant so as to not even count). They don't need to scale because they're simply riders on your attacks.
A few more options are all that's in order, and I'm sure we'll see more eventually.

But I believe the main argument with the lack of scaling refers to the number of superiority dice, not to the maneuvers themselves. People often cite monk's Ki as a basis for comparison, but that comparison is flawed in my opinion. Monks' Ki abilities don't all cost a single point. Sometimes tey cost many, many points (in the case of four winds) whereas maneuvers never cost more than one die.
They cost many points for emulating level 1-5 spells, taking your entire action - it roughly equates to what an eldritch knight gets. Equivalent abilities, things like get an extra attack, move double your speed/double jump, stun a target, gain range on your attacks, all cost 1.

The maneuvers are also fun, but they're not a replacement for the other classes. For one, they're on the fighter class, and the fighter's main power comes from many attacks and action surge, there's too little left to budget for interesting maneuvers. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy they tried something like this, the more variety there is the more fun everyone has, but it's not a replacement for a proper maneuver system.

[archaeo]

Show me one that actually make that swordfight I mentioned earlier interesting.

I mean, just throwing a bit of narrative player fiat in there does half the trick; I don't think "I cast fireball" is any more interesting than "I attack."


I... what? I've never watched whatever Naurto is, but since when is anyone required to 'call out' their attacks? And they are incredibly mechanically different from the 5e fighter.

I mean, are they? Most of the fighter abilities from 4e I'm familiar with, which is admittedly super limited, are just variations on the same things the 5e fighter can do, just set in the scaling-by-level AEDU paradigm. You do more of some things, less than others, but the core combat idea is there if you want it to be. 4e and, from what it sounds like, ToB, just guised things up, maybe gave a touch more battlefield control (that a 5e fighter can gin up if need be), but otherwise basically just gave scaling damage over the span of the levels and gave everything cool names that maybe also provided a little extra flavor.


Even using ability checks, environment etc a swordfight feels like two final fantasy characters pressing attack and slashing at each other until one runs out of health when you do it the champion way, ToB/4e style tactical options make it feel like a cinematic cut-and-thrust swordfight.

Frankly, ToB/4e-style fighters don't seem any more "cinematic" than 5e fighters, they're just more complicated. It's still a bucket of damage and occasionally, on encounter timers or daily timers, do some battlefield control.


Battlemaster's crap, the scaling is ridiculously poorly thought out. Fun early, runs out in a single turn late. The best way of doing the system is to name abilities, but you will notice every other ability in the game has a name as well.

I don't know, if you follow the DMG's suggested 2 short rests per adventuring day, the BM can drop a lot more of those dice. Couple that with how much shorter these combats seem to be, and it all feels like a bit of a win-win to me.

And it's not like there's a problem with naming abilities, it just isn't in-and-of-itself a better game design option to have a bunch of named abilities that are basically just watered down options the game gives you for free or as a Battle Master option.


Edit: There is a point to poor scaling with the Battle Master. At the higher levels you're just picking maneuvers from the same list at level 3 you didn't want then. Spellcasters get higher level spells. At level 15 you're picking your 8th and 9th favorite maneuvers of what ever is left you never wanted. Spellcasters are agonizing over what 8th level spell to take.

This seems like it would be a more valid critique if the 9th favorite maneuver meant I was getting some crap thing I didn't want, but "9th favorite" on this list still means a pretty substantial little ability to deploy. Honestly, when you pair it with the feats the fighter ought to take because of the extra ASIs, along with the combat options every character has, it seems like you can accomplish a lot with your four attacks and movement. That's before factoring in magic items, mounts, terrain, opponents, narrative...

[Eslin]

I might be missing a few bits, computer ate the post halfway through.


I mean, just throwing a bit of narrative player fiat in there does half the trick; I don't think "I cast fireball" is any more interesting than "I attack."
By itself, mildly, since at least there's aiming it cleverly involved. But it's more interesting because you're deciding between that, hold person, levitate, polymorph, animate objects, fire bolt and finger of death, poison spray - picking your tools based on the situation. A fighter, by comparison, gets to choose between attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack or attack. There are additional tools like tripping and shoving, but in the end what should be an epic clash of skill becomes rolling a d20 and saying 'I attack' over and over.


I mean, are they? Most of the fighter abilities from 4e I'm familiar with, which is admittedly super limited, are just variations on the same things the 5e fighter can do, just set in the scaling-by-level AEDU paradigm. You do more of some things, less than others, but the core combat idea is there if you want it to be. 4e and, from what it sounds like, ToB, just guised things up, maybe gave a touch more battlefield control (that a 5e fighter can gin up if need be), but otherwise basically just gave scaling damage over the span of the levels and gave everything cool names that maybe also provided a little extra flavor.
Not really. I do like the effect riding on basic attacks thing, it's pretty cool though would be better if the scaling (especially superiority dice) were improved, but it doesn't achieve the same thing. An assorted list of at will powers I can remember:
+2 attack, if used with an axe/mace/hammer bonus damage equal to your con mod, you grant advantage to the target (brash strike)
Deal damage, move one space, enemy moves into your space (footwork lure)
Deal damage, reduce all damage taken by your con mod (resolute shield)
Deal damage with no strength mod, every enemy adjacent to you is marked (threatening rush)
Before making the attack, sheathe weapon and draw a different one


Frankly, ToB/4e-style fighters don't seem any more "cinematic" than 5e fighters, they're just more complicated. It's still a bucket of damage and occasionally, on encounter timers or daily timers, do some battlefield control.
Not really. Keep in mind they're two different systems, one is AEDU and the other is based on encounter powers with individual class based recharge mechanics, neither of which are necessarily right for 5e. The spirit is important, the details can and should change to fit the system.

ToB/4e wise, things worked a little differently. In 4e at-will attacks all have riders attached - move one square, fancy footwork your opponent into moving into your old square, sheathe and draw a different weapon, attack has different effects based on which weapon you used, attack is more accurate and deals con mod bonus damage but you grant advantage, mark all nearby foes, etc. ToB had no daily moves, so everything was averaged a little higher so you'd get moves like ignoring your opponent's armour, rooting them, throwing your weapon in a 60 foot line or cancelling an opponent's attack with your shield.

In any case, the basic idea behind it is every attack should have a purpose behind it and its own effects, just like every spell does. Maybe it makes it easier for your allies to hit them, maybe you sacrifice having any extra effect for a damage boost, whatever, but that combined with counters/boosts/stances and then combine that with the normal trying to use the environment to your advantage etc and you have a swordfight which is actually fun to play.

[Madfellow]

Yes, but there is something to be said for comparing comparables. The Monk can Push, Trip, or deny reactions to up to 2 targets, for 1/2 a ki point each. They can stun for 1 ki point, and get deflect arrows, an improved version of parry in virtually every way, for either free or 1 ki point for an extra attack. They can spend a single ki point to increase the range of all attacks for the turn (vs just a single attack) by 10 feet (vs 5 feet). I'm not saying battle master is worthless, at all, but I am saying that the resource consumption is not comparable. The abilities that cost multiple points of ki are *far* more impactful than the maneuvers, things like "give the enemy a save or die effect as a rider to an existing attack, where you can trade an action to either kill them, or inflict on average 55 damage in exchange for an action" or "deal huge AOE damage" or "gain resistance to nonmagical weapons for up to an hour".

It seems to me that this is a strength of the system, not a weakness. For the player who wants to be a martial character with more control resources, the monk seems like perfect fit both mechanically and thematically. I feel like this conversation is always focused on the fighter, when we should be considering the monk as a viable alternative. Or better yet, a fighter/monk multiclass.

[pwykersotz]

By itself, mildly, since at least there's aiming it cleverly involved. But it's more interesting because you're deciding between that, hold person, levitate, polymorph, animate objects, fire bolt and finger of death, poison spray - picking your tools based on the situation. A fighter, by comparison, gets to choose between attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack or attack. There are additional tools like tripping and shoving, but in the end what should be an epic clash of skill becomes rolling a d20 and saying 'I attack' over and over.

Looking at it differently, you could say that the game has a wide variety of character options, ranging from very simple to play to very complex to play, and that the classes with access to magic are the most complex. Still, all the classes are capable of contributing because the options they have at their disposal are not rendered useless by the leveling process. There are only a couple notable exceptions to this (Champion and Magic Weapons) but they are corrected by other assumptions within the game.

I don't see this as an inherent problem. It only becomes one when (if) splat support contains power creep for the classes with modular features (spells). But right now, I haven't seen any of this at my table. I have so far had the following in my various groups: Dex Champion, Str Champion, Evoc Wizard, 2 Life Clerics, Eldritch Knight, Pally-lock, Elemental Monk, Bard-barian, Moon Druid, Assassin Rogue, Conj Wizard, BM Fighter. So far the only trouble I've had is with the Moon Druid at the known problem levels.

[Eslin]

Looking at it differently, you could say that the game has a wide variety of character options, ranging from very simple to play to very complex to play, and that the classes with access to magic are the most complex. Still, all the classes are capable of contributing because the options they have at their disposal are not rendered useless by the leveling process. There are only a couple notable exceptions to this (Champion and Magic Weapons) but they are corrected by other assumptions within the game.

That about sums it up. The main point of confusion for is why there aren't any martials with that kind of choice and complexity - ToB and 4e showed us that it works well if you're into that kind of thing, and we already have a range of medium to simple martials if you aren't.

[Freelance GM]

But I believe the main argument with the lack of scaling refers to the number of superiority dice, not to the maneuvers themselves.

In the playtest, if Fighters started their turn with no Expertise Dice (later renamed Maneuver Dice, then Superiority Dice) they could spend their Action to regain 2 Expertise/Superiority dice.

How much would it improve the Battlemaster if you added that rule back in? And maybe replaced Relentless with something more useful?

[Shadow]

In the playtest, if Fighters started their turn with no Expertise Dice (later renamed Maneuver Dice, then Superiority Dice) they could spend their Action to regain 2 Expertise/Superiority dice.

How much would it improve the Battlemaster if you added that rule back in? And maybe replaced Relentless with something more useful?

I don't think it needs improving. Others obviously disagree. I liked that part of the playtest, but I don't think it's necessary, nor do I think it's OP.

[Madfellow]

That about sums it up. The main point of confusion for is why there aren't any martials with that kind of choice and complexity - ToB and 4e showed us that it works well if you're into that kind of thing, and we already have a range of medium to simple martials if you aren't.

Because ToB and 4e are both highly contentious subjects among the fanbase.

[Xetheral]

Because ToB and 4e are both highly contentious subjects among the fanbase.

One might even go a step farther and say that whether or not they are highly contentious is highly contentious....

[silveralen]

In the playtest, if Fighters started their turn with no Expertise Dice (later renamed Maneuver Dice, then Superiority Dice) they could spend their Action to regain 2 Expertise/Superiority dice.

How much would it improve the Battlemaster if you added that rule back in? And maybe replaced Relentless with something more useful?

Absolutely none. That ability was changed because it quickly became apparent it was rarely, if ever, a good idea to spend your turn doing that. It appealed to people who liked how it reminded them of warblade, but it simply lack oomph this time.

Alternative versions either ended up being far too spammable (trading of an attack for a dice) or remained subpar (making a single attack, regain 1-2 dice).

The idea behind warblade in 3.5 was that the basic combat skills were lacking, and a full attack was both difficult to set up and often not particularly effective. Alot of the mechanics, like trading a turn to recharge maneuvers, stops making sense when that isn't the case.

I mean, run 3.5 where you can make your max number of attacks as a standard action (so no need for pounce to move and full attack) and every attack goes off at the max attack bonus. Suddenly warblade's recharge mechanic looks a lot less attractive.

[Pex]

Absolutely none. That ability was changed because it quickly became apparent it was rarely, if ever, a good idea to spend your turn doing that. It appealed to people who liked how it reminded them of warblade, but it simply lack oomph this time.

Alternative versions either ended up being far too spammable (trading of an attack for a dice) or remained subpar (making a single attack, regain 1-2 dice).

The idea behind warblade in 3.5 was that the basic combat skills were lacking, and a full attack was both difficult to set up and often not particularly effective. Alot of the mechanics, like trading a turn to recharge maneuvers, stops making sense when that isn't the case.

I mean, run 3.5 where you can make your max number of attacks as a standard action (so no need for pounce to move and full attack) and every attack goes off at the max attack bonus. Suddenly warblade's recharge mechanic looks a lot less attractive.

I don't see how. You can still make an attack with warblade while recovering maneuvers. It could be one attack or a full attack as long as you spend a swift action and don't use any maneuvers, but you can use a stance you're already in. Spending an action doing nothing is for those occasions where you happen not to be next to an opponent nor reach one as a move action so might as well recover. It was swordsage that had the terrible recovery method. Even though a feat improved it, it was still a full round action doing nothing. That is unattractive.

[archaeo]

By itself, mildly, since at least there's aiming it cleverly involved. But it's more interesting because you're deciding between that, hold person, levitate, polymorph, animate objects, fire bolt and finger of death, poison spray - picking your tools based on the situation. A fighter, by comparison, gets to choose between attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack or attack. There are additional tools like tripping and shoving, but in the end what should be an epic clash of skill becomes rolling a d20 and saying 'I attack' over and over.

Except you don't just say "I attack" over and over again, unless that's all you want to do. If you're using the DMG rules, and I'm not sure why you wouldn't if you want additional tactical complexity, the champion fighter can use their four attacks per round to attack, shove, trip, grapple (and move with the grappled enemy), disarm, shove aside, tumble, or try to overrun while moving. This is before you throw in feats, and the fighter has more viable options to choose from than any other class, arguably. And, again, it's before you throw in any magic weapons, armor, or items, all of which provide a number of things to do.

And that's the Champion.


Not really. I do like the effect riding on basic attacks thing, it's pretty cool though would be better if the scaling (especially superiority dice) were improved, but it doesn't achieve the same thing. An assorted list of at will powers I can remember:
+2 attack, if used with an axe/mace/hammer bonus damage equal to your con mod, you grant advantage to the target (brash strike)
Deal damage, move one space, enemy moves into your space (footwork lure)
Deal damage, reduce all damage taken by your con mod (resolute shield)
Deal damage with no strength mod, every enemy adjacent to you is marked (threatening rush)
Before making the attack, sheathe weapon and draw a different one

Now let's look at the Battle Master instead, who can do literally all of these things either with maneuvers, feats, or just by virtue of being in 5e. Going by order:
The +2 attack thing just sounds a bit like Great Weapon Master, only reversed and kind of pointless.
Footwork Lure can be accomplished with a grapple and move, move and push, or something else; it also isn't as valuable in 5e, imo.
Resolute Shield is basically Evasive Footwork without taking one of your attacks
Threatening Rush can be done by handing out plenty of Goading Attacks
and I imagine anyone who would've taken the sheathe-and-draw action would be ok with taking Dual Wielder.

This is in addition to all the other stuff Battle Master brings to the table. It's pretty clearly a merging of the warlord and fighter classes from 4e, but it seems meaty enough to me, especially if you either a) move to the heroic rest paradigm or b) have a party that will take short rests after about every other combat, as the DMG suggests. I guess I can grant the scaling thing, though I feel like having "levels" of maneuvers would just clutter the design needlessly.

It should be noted that making a new maneuver based on an old 4e power also sounds like something that would be easy and fun to do for anyone looking for more. I bet it'll be a popular homebrew thing.


In any case, the basic idea behind it is every attack should have a purpose behind it and its own effects, just like every spell does. Maybe it makes it easier for your allies to hit them, maybe you sacrifice having any extra effect for a damage boost, whatever, but that combined with counters/boosts/stances and then combine that with the normal trying to use the environment to your advantage etc and you have a swordfight which is actually fun to play.

Which sounds pretty cool! And is something that I can't really imagine WotC is never going to pursue, given that you're hardly the only person who feels like there isn't a complex martial option in core. In the meantime, however, I think the game accomplishes its goals just fine, and meeting a player halfway if they're unhappy with the options is really, incredibly easy.

[Eslin]

Because ToB and 4e are both highly contentious subjects among the fanbase.
4e wise I get - I liked what it did for a few aspects (leaders, martials) but it threw a ton of babies out with the bathwater. Doesn't mean you shouldn't include the good parts in 5e, but I get it being contentious.

But why would anyone have a problem with ToB? It introduced options to martials and reasonable power without breaking anything in an edition where they were very limited in what they could do and very behind in power. Not sure how that could be seen as anything but a good thing.


Except you don't just say "I attack" over and over again, unless that's all you want to do. If you're using the DMG rules, and I'm not sure why you wouldn't if you want additional tactical complexity, the champion fighter can use their four attacks per round to attack, shove, trip, grapple (and move with the grappled enemy), disarm, shove aside, tumble, or try to overrun while moving. This is before you throw in feats, and the fighter has more viable options to choose from than any other class, arguably. And, again, it's before you throw in any magic weapons, armor, or items, all of which provide a number of things to do.

And that's the Champion.
Except that you do. I like that the DMG included a bunch of additional options, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of the time those options are inferior to just attacking, especially against larger foes, which still remains your only way of dealing damage. Video games caught onto this a long time ago, you'll notice that in any game where you have control over one character they're given multiple options for dealing damage so they don't have to just keep auto attacking and while D&D can do a lot of things video games can't that doesn't mean there are no lessons to be learned from each other. And again, there's no differentiation between characters - some people like playing a wizard instead of a cleric, just like some people like playing a crusader instead of a swordsage. Half the reason I like these options is it means the options you take for your attacks serve as a great way of making your character's abilities stand out.


Now let's look at the Battle Master instead, who can do literally all of these things either with maneuvers, feats, or just by virtue of being in 5e. Going by order:
The +2 attack thing just sounds a bit like Great Weapon Master, only reversed and kind of pointless.
It isn't, it's sacrificing utility and defense to deal greater damage.

Footwork Lure can be accomplished with a grapple and move, move and push, or something else; it also isn't as valuable in 5e, imo.
Sure, which is why I've never recommended porting something straight into 5e. These are all examples from the top of my head from last edition.

Resolute Shield is basically Evasive Footwork without taking one of your attacks
No it isn't, evasive footwork just protects you from attacks while you're moving, does nothing for when they attack on their turns.

Threatening Rush can be done by handing out plenty of Goading Attacks
Which will very quickly run the fighter out of superiority dice which he'll need to spend an hour getting back. See why I keep advocating for a proper tank class and 4e/ToB style combat?

and I imagine anyone who would've taken the sheathe-and-draw action would be ok with taking Dual Wielder.
Not really, dual wielder is one of your very limited feats. Half the point to the system is meaning you don't have to permanently alter your character to get that kind of ability, you can switch what you're using like a caster does. And the sheathe/draw isn't the point behind that attack, it's just there to facilitate the different effects with different weapons thing.


This is in addition to all the other stuff Battle Master brings to the table. It's pretty clearly a merging of the warlord and fighter classes from 4e, but it seems meaty enough to me, especially if you either a) move to the heroic rest paradigm or b) have a party that will take short rests after about every other combat, as the DMG suggests. I guess I can grant the scaling thing, though I feel like having "levels" of maneuvers would just clutter the design needlessly.

It should be noted that making a new maneuver based on an old 4e power also sounds like something that would be easy and fun to do for anyone looking for more. I bet it'll be a popular homebrew thing.
Which is the reason I dislike the battlemaster. Not for itself - the dice need an improvement, but it's a cool idea. I dislike it because for some reason people keep telling me that it has anything to do with the warlord. It doesn't. It has two vaguely warlord like maneuvers, one of which is useless after a while and the other of which is really situational (basically requires someone have one attack better than two of yours), and plays in a completely different way. That's fine, making the fighter emulate the warlord was never going to work, but saying the battlemaster is like a warlord is like saying a monk is like a wizard just because the monk has a couple of similar abilities.


Which sounds pretty cool! And is something that I can't really imagine WotC is never going to pursue, given that you're hardly the only person who feels like there isn't a complex martial option in core. In the meantime, however, I think the game accomplishes its goals just fine, and meeting a player halfway if they're unhappy with the options is really, incredibly easy.
If it was that easy I would have done it. If you want an idea of the amount of work involved, observe the last third of the PHB - the reason we buy their books is so we don't have to put in that amount of work.

[archaeo]

If it was that easy I would have done it. If you want an idea of the amount of work involved, observe the last third of the PHB - the reason we buy their books is so we don't have to put in that amount of work.

Then play another game altogether, please. It doesn't seem like you enjoy 5e at all; it lacks perfection in clarity, precision, and balance, three things it seems like you desire from a rule system. I get the sense that you do rather enjoy arguing about it, though, so I guess Mearls & Co. did design a game you'd like, just not the one they printed. Which is a big plus for the Giant's pageviews, I suppose?

Seriously, why not just play a game that does what you want it to do?

[Eslin]

Then play another game altogether, please. It doesn't seem like you enjoy 5e at all; it lacks perfection in clarity, precision, and balance, three things it seems like you desire from a rule system. I get the sense that you do rather enjoy arguing about it, though, so I guess Mearls & Co. did design a game you'd like, just not the one they printed. Which is a big plus for the Giant's pageviews, I suppose?

Seriously, why not just play a game that does what you want it to do?

I DM'd my way through 3.5, I think I can handle a few balance issues in an edition in which a monk and a wizard can both fight without the monk feeling useless. I've already said why I like 5e, not going to bother repeating it. It has a few bugs, a lot more rules ambiguity and conflicting design decisions than such a simple edition should and gave casters a few too many tools and martials too few, but overall it does its job well.

More supplements would be nice, especially magic item wise (there are some gaping holes in the magic item catalogue), but the only thing that's really missing is the warlord and a proper martial subsystem, both of which seem like they'd come in the same book.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I'm glad we've moved on from the "endless debate" portion of the argument to the "each camp makes their own snarky threads to discuss how right they are" portion.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Not gonna dig through Eslin's post to quote on my phone, but Lawolf on the wotc d&d forum made a pretty great warblade class that's pretty well balanced against the 5e martial classes, but has more of the 4e playstyle with a bunch of discrete maneuvers. And I made a (less rigorously balanced and polished) Mythic Hero fighter subclass on the Enworld board that i've already linked plenty of times. Might be worth checking them out.

[silveralen]

I don't see how. You can still make an attack with warblade while recovering maneuvers. It could be one attack or a full attack as long as you spend a swift action and don't use any maneuvers, but you can use a stance you're already in. Spending an action doing nothing is for those occasions where you happen not to be next to an opponent nor reach one as a move action so might as well recover. It was swordsage that had the terrible recovery method. Even though a feat improved it, it was still a full round action doing nothing. That is unattractive.

I'm honestly trying to remember if I literally spent years playing warblade incorrectly, or if at one time I knew you could make a full attack as part of the recovery and forgot. Because at some point I thought of it as making a stand attack, not a full attack. I really hope I'm just remembering incorrectly, and that I ended up not using full attacks often for one of the many reason you couldn't in 3.5.

[Eslin]

I'm glad we've moved on from the "endless debate" portion of the argument to the "each camp makes their own snarky threads to discuss how right they are" portion.

Have we? Because it looks like Archaeo forgoing discussion in order to instruct me to go do something (I think last time it was ban all full casters from my games?) yet again.

[silveralen]

Have we? Because it looks like Archaeo forgoing discussion in order to instruct me to go do something (I think last time it was ban all full casters from my games?) yet again.

For the record, pathfinder with no full casters was some of the most fun I've had. With advanced players guide you didn't even suffer from lacking thematically similar roles.

Yes it isn't relevant, but it certainly can lead to a different dynamic that can spice things up.

[Eslin]

For the record, pathfinder with no full casters was some of the most fun I've had. With advanced players guide you didn't even suffer from lacking thematically similar roles.

Yes it isn't relevant, but it certainly can lead to a different dynamic that can spice things up.

It's fun in any number of editions - if you play 3.5 again, try it with no tier 1s or 2s and see how you go. In 5e it's a game mode, though, not a general solution to imbalance. It's also one of the reasons I'd like a martial supplement that includes a chunk of ToB/4e style classes, currently there's not enough variation for it to be that workable in 5e - though seeing as we only have the PHB, that's only to be expected.

[silveralen]

It's fun in any number of editions - if you play 3.5 again, try it with no tier 1s or 2s and see how you go. In 5e it's a game mode, though, not a general solution to imbalance. It's also one of the reasons I'd like a martial supplement that includes a chunk of ToB/4e style classes, currently there's not enough variation for it to be that workable in 5e - though seeing as we only have the PHB, that's only to be expected.

Maybe if I could run zhientiarium (too lazy to look up spelling) variant fighter, possibly with the dungeon smasher (again, can't remember the exact name) variant as well. Always wanted to, never actually had a chance.

[Celcey]

Once again, the problem is I want to be able to achieve extraordinary things without magic. You can want the same amount of tactical choice a wizard has without wanting to be a wizard, you know.

I can understand wanting to have a certain amount of tactical choices that maybe martials don't have right now (or maybe they do, I haven't finished my DMG), but isn't the whole point of magic to achieve extraordinary things that would be impossible without magic?

[Eslin]

Maybe if I could run zhientiarium (too lazy to look up spelling) variant fighter, possibly with the dungeon smasher (again, can't remember the exact name) variant as well. Always wanted to, never actually had a chance.
Zhentarim and dungeoncrasher. They do combine well, add those to a few other things and you get a halfway versatile fighter.


I can understand wanting to have a certain amount of tactical choices that maybe martials don't have right now (or maybe they do, I haven't finished my DMG), but isn't the whole point of magic to achieve extraordinary things that would be impossible without magic?
Well, sort of. Keep in mind martials already do plenty of impossible stuff anyway, hello taking 10 arrows to the face and healing by spending an hour relaxing with a cup of tea and a nice book. But when I'm talking about tactical choices, I'm not meaning anything supernatural - check the 4e martials or ToB warblade to see what I mean.

[silveralen]

Zhentarim and dungeoncrasher. They do combine well, add those to a few other things and you get a halfway versatile fighter.

I'm trying to remember the rest of it. I think it included half ogre as a race, a spiked chain, combat reflexes, the improved trip line, and some feat to have knockback on every hit. It was one of those "11 source books" builds that managed to be vaguely tier 4.

The fact I can pretty much get to that same point with just the PHB and DMG in 5e is a big deal to me though.

[Eslin]

I'm trying to remember the rest of it. I think it included half ogre as a race, a spiked chain, combat reflexes, the improved trip line, and some feat to have knockback on every hit. It was one of those "11 source books" builds that managed to be vaguely tier 4.

The fact I can pretty much get to that same point with just the PHB and DMG in 5e is a big deal to me though.

Yep, there's a reason I jumped ship. Please note that you can just take a bunch of levels of warblade and get the same thing, and the knockback feat is actually called knockback =P

[Deathtongue]

Whenever I see someone suggest a martial fix -- either from 3E, 4E, or 5E fans -- 99% of the time it is a way that makes them better at close-range personal combat. As if the problem with the fighter wasn't a narrative problem. So even if one of the problems of martials is that their numbers aren't level appropriate, solving that problem wouldn't really do anything towards making them viable members of the party.

I maintain that the biggest problem with martials is that as the game advances fighting becomes an increasingly obsolete and unworkable way of advancing the plot. Star Trek crews save the day less often with dogfights and personal combat than Star Wars crews. Dr. Strange and Green Lantern solve fewer problems by punching people than Spider-Man and Daredevil. If Iron Man and Wolverine were represented as d20 characters, increasing Iron Man's overall combat effectiveness by 50% would only modestly increase his ability at overcoming level-appropriate challenges while it would make Wolverine grossly overpowered for his CR. If you were Han Solo or Commander Shepherd, you'd rather have five Boba Fetts on your team than one Spock. If you were Jean Luc Picard or Benjamin Sisko, you'd rather have one Spock than ten Boba Fetts. I don't think that any of these are coincidences.

[Eslin]

Whenever I see someone suggest a martial fix -- either from 3E, 4E, or 5E fans -- 99% of the time it is a way that makes them better at close-range personal combat. As if the problem with the fighter wasn't a narrative problem. So even if one of the problems of martials is that their numbers aren't level appropriate, solving that problem wouldn't really do anything towards making them viable members of the party.

I maintain that the biggest problem with martials is that as the game advances fighting becomes an increasingly obsolete and unworkable way of advancing the plot. Star Trek crews save the day less often with dogfights and personal combat than Star Wars crews. Dr. Strange and Iron Man solve fewer problems by punching people than Spider-Man and Daredevil. If Iron Man and The Punisher were represented as d20 characters, increasing Iron Man's overall combat effectiveness by 50% would only modestly increase his ability at overcoming level-appropriate challenges while it would make Wolverine grossly overpowered for his CR. If you were Han Solo or Commander Shepherd, you'd rather have five Boba Fetts on your team than one Spock. If you were Jean Luc Picard or Benjamin Sisko, you'd rather have one Spock than ten Boba Fetts. I don't think that any of these are coincidences.

Pretty goood analysis. Combat wise, I wanted more martial in-combat versatility as a first step (not more power), since tactical options can sometimes become strategic options in the right place - and that's hard to homebrew for yourself, easier to wait for a book full of abilities.

[archaeo]

I DM'd my way through 3.5, I think I can handle a few balance issues in an edition in which a monk and a wizard can both fight without the monk feeling useless. I've already said why I like 5e, not going to bother repeating it. It has a few bugs, a lot more rules ambiguity and conflicting design decisions than such a simple edition should and gave casters a few too many tools and martials too few, but overall it does its job well.

More supplements would be nice, especially magic item wise (there are some gaping holes in the magic item catalogue), but the only thing that's really missing is the warlord and a proper martial subsystem, both of which seem like they'd come in the same book.

I guess I just have a hard time imaging playing something I thought was so fundamentally flawed. Maybe, because I mostly see your comments in critical threads, I don't get the "this system is awesome" side of your opinion.


Have we? Because it looks like Archaeo forgoing discussion in order to instruct me to go do something (I think last time it was ban all full casters from my games?) yet again.

You could just ban all martials instead. :smallbiggrin:

I'm also not trying to forgo discussion, but it honestly doesn't seem like we're making much headway with one another on this point, so why bother? I think the martial balance is ok, you don't, whatever.

edited to add:

Whenever I see someone suggest a martial fix -- either from 3E, 4E, or 5E fans -- 99% of the time it is a way that makes them better at close-range personal combat. As if the problem with the fighter wasn't a narrative problem. So even if one of the problems of martials is that their numbers aren't level appropriate, solving that problem wouldn't really do anything towards making them viable members of the party.

I maintain that the biggest problem with martials is that as the game advances fighting becomes an increasingly obsolete and unworkable way of advancing the plot. Star Trek crews save the day less often with dogfights and personal combat than Star Wars crews. Dr. Strange and Green Lantern solve fewer problems by punching people than Spider-Man and Daredevil. If Iron Man and Wolverine were represented as d20 characters, increasing Iron Man's overall combat effectiveness by 50% would only modestly increase his ability at overcoming level-appropriate challenges while it would make Wolverine grossly overpowered for his CR. If you were Han Solo or Commander Shepherd, you'd rather have five Boba Fetts on your team than one Spock. If you were Jean Luc Picard or Benjamin Sisko, you'd rather have one Spock than ten Boba Fetts. I don't think that any of these are coincidences.

Can't you just give martials narrative power within the plot and setting without necessitating some kind of "martial fix"? I mean, making each PC a unique and valuable character inside the campaign is going to go a very long way toward correcting any narrative deficiencies a martial class might have.

[Deathtongue]

@Eslin
So what kind of non-magical sword technique would you use to stop a metropolis-sized zombie apocalypse in progress? Which 3E or 4E martial power is best suited for rooting out the wizardly and demonic spies infiltrating the Union government and NGOs? If I was assigned to Saltmarch or Neverwinter and was told to repair the city's infrastructure, economy, and military the best I could for the prophesized war in six months, what martial scripts would let me accomplish this the fastest?

[Eslin]

I guess I just have a hard time imaging playing something I thought was so fundamentally flawed. Maybe, because I mostly see your comments in critical threads, I don't get the "this system is awesome" side of your opinion.
Well, obviously. There was some discussion on the merits of the system a while ago and positivity was displayed, but mostly the only parts that make it to the forum are the problem parts. I make threads asking what the hell the designers were thinking with a belt of giant strength (29), but the tome of the stilled tongue goes unmentioned because it works fine.


Can't you just give martials narrative power within the plot and setting without necessitating some kind of "martial fix"? I mean, making each PC a unique and valuable character inside the campaign is going to go a very long way toward correcting any narrative deficiencies a martial class might have.
Well, the main problem is for the most part the martial characters aren't going to start off with much narrative power, and obtaining narrative power (which I assume means social influence of some kind? Military, economic, etc) is much easier with the range of unique things spellcasting provides.


@Eslin
So what kind of non-magical sword technique would you use to stop a metropolis-sized zombie apocalypse in progress? Which 3E or 4E martial power is best suited for rooting out the wizardly and demonic spies infiltrating the Union government and NGOs? If I was assigned to Saltmarch or Neverwinter and was told to repair the city's infrastructure, economy, and military the best I could for the prophesized war in six months, what martial scripts would let me accomplish this the fastest?

Oh, none. The way D&D is set up means that for the most part, magic is better at dealing with big problems. Best I can do is allow extraordinary exploits that are basically supernatural (since everyone does impossible **** in D&D, like jumping 13 feet straight up in the air) like chewing through rocks and hiding under someone's hat while they're wearing it, working on a system like that at present.

[Deathtongue]

Can't you just give martials narrative power within the plot and setting without necessitating some kind of "martial fix"? I mean, making each PC a unique and valuable character inside the campaign is going to go a very long way toward correcting any narrative deficiencies a martial class might have.

You could, but it comes with its own set of problems.

Let's talk about Batman for a bit. Batman, despite being a mundane character with ultimately mundane schticks, has a huge amount of abstract narrative power; his Bruce Wayne persona gives him the ability to have governments take him seriously in negotiations and conduct economic warfare and sometimes just money bomb problems away. If things start to go pear-shaped, Batman can just bust out one of his mecha or deploy a ton of Bat-drones or spend a few weeks in the Batcave researching a new kind of drug. And if things really get dicey he can always just give Zatanna or Green Lantern or Superman a call and ask to borrow a ritual or the use of the lantern ring or some superscience from the Fortress of Solitude.

The problem is that every time Batman does one of these things to solve a problem he feels a bit less like the Dark Knight. But at higher level, he'll increasingly have to implement solutions that don't involve sneaking up on people or kicking them in the face or following a linked list of clues -- not without the DM specifically structuring the plot in such a way to let him do those things. Yet if he does these things too often then a lot of things that make Batman Batman are pointless; Batman may as well be a morbidly obese, clumsy nerd in a wheelchair and it'll barely impact his overall effectiveness. It doesn't matter what Batman has in his utility belt if Bruce Wayne uproots Deacon Blackfire's cult by conducting information warfare. Who cares that Batman rigorously trains to peak human ability if he has a Bubblegum Crisis-style power suit?

[Knaight]

It means they want special snowflake abilities with special snowflake names, but they won't admit that almost every single thing that they might want to accomplish via their amazing special snowflake abilities are already covered under maneuvers.

This is ridiculous. Maneuvers cover a few things, and outside of the Battlemaster there's even less. Fundamentally, it's a matter of abstraction. The level at which martial combat is abstracted is more abstract than the level of spell casting. Instead of specific spells, there's a pretty generic attack action and a few things that represent very major divergences from typical attacks. Whether this is a good or bad thing is subjective - levels of abstraction vary between subsystems, and having a less abstract system isn't inherently better - but it's there. The abstraction difference is a genuine trait of the system, just like the hefty abstraction difference between combat and everything else is a major trait of the system.

Turning to other systems, consider Burning Wheel. It's combat system involves the following abilities, without getting into terrain use, the positioning system, or a bunch of other things:

Avoid
Beat
Block
Charge
Counter
Disarm
Feint
Great Strike
Lock
Push
Strike
Throw


The way the system works involves the simultaneous interaction of several participants, all of whom have short scripts representing movements which are combinations of these, in which each combination is checked on a table, then the result is checked on another table. Also, before you even get to that point, you have variability in script length, timing, and other things based on several stats, wounds, equipment, and whatever else - plus a few special script options (e.g. Draw Weapon) that don't even make it onto the matrix. It's got a lot of tactical complexity to it, even in the context of a straight duel between two people. It's also made for a system in which important fights (where it gets used) are supposed to be rare, climactic events that warrant the attention, and is obviously ridiculous overkill for D&D that would just be a total pain in the rear.

On another extreme (also in Burning Wheel), there's a system used for unimportant fights. Everyone declares goals, major differences are abstracted away into simple modifiers, everyone rolls a fight skill once, and it's resolved. It's basically combat as a skill check. Those represent points pretty close to opposite ends of a spectrum of decision making and tactical complexity. There are games that are to either side of it, but there are way more in the middle.

The position that martial characters need more in-combat options and tactics is not a desire for them to be "special snowflakes". It is a desire for the abstraction balance and tactical complexity of D&D 5e martial classes to be nudged a bit towards the former case. How much of a nudge varies between people - I've yet to see anyone want to go anywhere near the "Fight!" subsystem's actual position - but it's wanting some sort of nudge nonetheless. It's also worth noting that the D&D magic system is significantly more complex, and a bit closer to the Burning Wheel "Fight!" end of things.

[silveralen]

Yep, there's a reason I jumped ship. Please note that you can just take a bunch of levels of warblade and get the same thing, and the knockback feat is actually called knockback =P

I just cannot stand playing ToB characters. I tried. I played a warblade for a couple years. For a while I enjoyed it, but as time went on I began to hate it. Being shackled to the annoying tedium of stances and maneuvers was like being a caster having to stack buffs and track spells, except without the payoff of actually being able to do things besides hit people. I just hit people with fancy effects, which was in no way better for me than hitting them with non fancy effects. The difference was one of effectiveness, and I usually could cheese my way there easier (I love you spirit lion barbarian).

[Deathtongue]

I just cannot stand playing ToB characters. I tried. I played a warblade for a couple years. For a while I enjoyed it, but as time went on I began to hate it. Being shackled to the annoying tedium of stances and maneuvers was like being a caster having to stack buffs and track spells, except without the payoff of actually being able to do things besides hit people. I just hit people with fancy effects, which was in no way better for me than hitting them with non fancy effects. The difference was one of effectiveness, and I usually could cheese my way there easier (I love you spirit lion barbarian).

I find your anecdote interesting, because that's more-or-less the experience I had with playing a warblade. I like the underlying idea of the class, where you're forced to make a choice between playing conservatively and keeping defensive maneuvers in reserve or pressing the offense and refreshing first opportunity at the risk of being caught without an Iron Heart or (poached) Setting Sun or Diamond Mind maneuver to bail you out. Very cool. Unfortunately, at the end of the day you were pretty much doing the same thing -- running up to people and hitting them with your sword. If Bo9S maneuvers had stronger special effects (such as creating Wall of Stone when you stabbed the ground or summoning sword spirits from the back of the book or transforming your sword into a giant portal to the Elemental Plane of Water; I believe that only Desert Wind even tried to really advance beyond that paradigm) I think that they might have really had something.

[archaeo]

Well, the main problem is for the most part the martial characters aren't going to start off with much narrative power, and obtaining narrative power (which I assume means social influence of some kind? Military, economic, etc) is much easier with the range of unique things spellcasting provides.

You can "start off" with plenty of narrative power; do you not tie your PCs backstories in with the campaign's plot? Do you not reward PCs with titles and property? And how does spellcasting make it any easier to obtain this power, short of charming kings and entire populations?

In an edition where anyone who wants to can start with the noble background, it rings a little false to say spellcasters can get social influence more easily. This is obviously easier in campaigns that are a bit more PC-centric than yours, Eslin, but c'mon. It's not hard to, for example, give some martial PC a title and a place in some country's government in order to give the player something to do if they're bored.


You could, but it comes with its own set of problems.

Let's talk about Batman for a bit. Batman, despite being a mundane character with ultimately mundane schticks, has a huge amount of abstract narrative power; his Bruce Wayne persona gives him the ability to have governments take him seriously in negotiations and conduct economic warfare and sometimes just money bomb problems away. If things start to go pear-shaped, Batman can just bust out one of his mecha or deploy a ton of Bat-drones or spend a few weeks in the Batcave researching a new kind of drug. And if things really get dicey he can always just give Zatanna or Green Lantern or Superman a call and ask to borrow a ritual or the use of the lantern ring or some superscience from the Fortress of Solitude.

The problem is that every time Batman does one of these things to solve a problem he feels a bit less like the Dark Knight. But at higher level, he'll increasingly have to implement solutions that don't involve sneaking up on people or kicking them in the face or following a linked list of clues -- not without the DM specifically structuring the plot in such a way to let him do those things. Yet if he does these things too often then a lot of things that make Batman Batman are pointless; Batman may as well be a morbidly obese, clumsy nerd in a wheelchair and it'll barely impact his overall effectiveness. It doesn't matter what Batman has in his utility belt if Bruce Wayne uproots Deacon Blackfire's cult by conducting information warfare. Who cares that Batman rigorously trains to peak human ability if he has a Bubblegum Crisis-style power suit?

So, basically, because martial PCs would be wielding narrative power that isn't necessarily tied into being a "fighter", that would devalue their experience? Or somehow water it down?

[silveralen]

I find your anecdote interesting, because that's more-or-less the experience I had with playing a warblade. I like the underlying idea of the class, where you're forced to make a choice between playing conservatively and keeping defensive maneuvers in reserve or pressing the offense and refreshing first opportunity at the risk of being caught without an Iron Heart or (poached) Setting Sun or Diamond Mind maneuver to bail you out. Very cool. Unfortunately, at the end of the day you were pretty much doing the same thing -- running up to people and hitting them with your sword. If Bo9S maneuvers had stronger special effects (such as creating Wall of Stone when you stabbed the ground or summoning sword spirits from the back of the book or transforming your sword into a giant portal to the Elemental Plane of Water; I believe that only Desert Wind even tried to really advance beyond that paradigm) I think that they might have really had something.

I actually liked magus for that reason, it wasn't perfect but it gave you a better mix.

In fact, I like the way spells have been expanded to all classes so that it's really easy to grab a bit of extra utility. I know not everyone likes having to use magic, but in a high magic low tech world it makes things so much easier. It's either that or tons of skill boosts (and I do want a lore warden/skill monkey type fighter archetype at some point). Plus, once you get to desert wind style sword fighting, it's basically just a different way of accessing magic.

[Eslin]

You can "start off" with plenty of narrative power; do you not tie your PCs backstories in with the campaign's plot? Do you not reward PCs with titles and property? And how does spellcasting make it any easier to obtain this power, short of charming kings and entire populations?

In an edition where anyone who wants to can start with the noble background, it rings a little false to say spellcasters can get social influence more easily. This is obviously easier in campaigns that are a bit more PC-centric than yours, Eslin, but c'mon. It's not hard to, for example, give some martial PC a title and a place in some country's government in order to give the player something to do if they're bored.
Of course they can obtain power, and sometimes start with it, though obviously I'm not going to tie my PCs backstories in with what's happening to any greater degree than the other characters around them unless there's a good reason to do so, they're not special little snowflakes with a special snowflake destiny. But of course spellcasters can get social influence more easily - if someone's handing out titles and property, that kind of thing is naturally going to be based on a character's deeds. And as we've seen, the caster tends to be all around more useful than the martial, so on average if you're handing out prestige the caster's getting more. Who is getting the bigger estate - the wizard who scried the lair of the werewolves who kidnapped the Queen's son, teleported everyone there and fought the werewolves, the cleric who fought the werewolves, removed the curse of lycanthropy from her son and healed him or the fighter who fought the werewolves?

[Deathtongue]

So, basically, because martial PCs would be wielding narrative power that isn't necessarily tied into being a "fighter", that would devalue their experience? Or somehow water it down?

I'm afraid it would demean their characters. There are players out there who might enjoy the transition of their character from Batman: The Gotham Facepuncher to Bruce Wayne: The Kindly NGO Superpower Leader and Tinkerer -- but most Batman players would also interpret it (correctly, IMO) as the DM and game designer telling them to retire and passive-aggressively roll up a new character. Especially if they get to see Harry Potter and Cyborg and Alucard gracefully handle the transition from low-level to high-level characters without changing the core of who they were. These players are going to keep asking the game designers why they and Green Arrow and Conan and Madmartigan and Roy can't use their original idiom anymore when the characters with a scaling power source obviously get to. And if the game says that Jimmy Olsen and Tyrion can handle their new careers as Narrative Power-wielding Masterminds just as well as they could then that's just going to add even more fuel to the fire.

See, a lot of Batman and Madmartigan and Roy players don't just want to remain relevant at high level, they want to remain relevant primarily through mundane melee combat. You have some wiggle room like handing out magic swords, but you only have so much; giving them the Gate of Babylon or a Green Lantern ring breaks their idiom in the way described above. All in all, diversionary tactics like declaring that they get a power source stapled onto them or kicking them upstairs to the laboratory and CEO boardroom or letting them level-up into WFM tier isn't going to satisfy them. And we're back at square one.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think it's a weird assumption that D&D campaigns shift from Star Wars to Star Trek at high levels. Why would this be the case at all? You can run a dungeon crawl at level 15. You can untangle a web of political intrigue at level 3. There's no particular reason a fighter's core skillset (fighting) should be less useful at high levels. Especially when a well-equipped high-level fighter with spell support can kill basically anything in the world in under 20 seconds.

And if the campaign does go into "star trek mode," the fighter really isn't far behind. since a high-level fighter has all of the wealth of his wizard buddy with none of the expenses from building golems and clones and casting stoneskin and whatnot, he can pretty much BE Bruce Wayne at high levels. For the cost of a suit of +3 armor he can build a castle and an airship armada.

[silveralen]

I'm afraid it would demean their characters. There are players out there who might enjoy the transition of their character from Batman: The Gotham Facepuncher to Bruce Wayne: The Kindly NGO Superpower Leader and Tinkerer -- but most Batman players would also interpret it (correctly, IMO) as the DM and game designer telling them to retire and passive-aggressively roll up a new character. Especially if they get to see Harry Potter and Cyborg and Alucard gracefully handle the transition from low-level to high-level characters without changing the core of who they were. These players are going to keep asking the game designers why they and Green Arrow and Conan and Madmartigan and Roy can't use their original idiom anymore when the characters with a scaling power source obviously get to. And if the game says that Jimmy Olsen and Tyrion can handle their new careers as Narrative Power-wielding Masterminds just as well as they could then that's just going to add even more fuel to the fire.

See, a lot of Batman and Madmartigan and Roy players don't just want to remain relevant at high level, they want to remain relevant primarily through mundane melee combat. You have some wiggle room like handing out magic swords, but you only have so much; giving them the Gate of Babylon or a Green Lantern ring breaks their idiom in the way described above. All in all, diversionary tactics like declaring that they get a power source stapled onto them or kicking them upstairs to the laboratory and CEO boardroom or letting them level-up into WFM tier isn't going to satisfy them. And we're back at square one.

Which Alucard did you mention? Hellsing Alucard? Because that is a character whose abilities are based 100% on violence, intimidation, violence, being practically unkillable, violence, being able to disguise himself (in the spin off), and then some violence to top it off.

That's exactly the sort of narrative power a high level fighting character can wield, the sheer threat that someone who can murder entire cities without breaking a sweat brings. Sure, some other things are there, but the focus is pretty much on the killing bit.

At some point, if you want to stay relevant by hitting things with a sword, you have to be willing to use it liberally, or the threat of the sword at least. That might mean focusing yourself on combat oriented goals, or it might mean a great deal of violence used to solve problems that could've been resolved without it.

Jamie Lanister is actually a decent example of someone who turned martial prowess into something more, trading off on his combat power to the point that threats alone can get him pretty far, and his ability also translated into temporal power to a degree (I also favor the idea martial characters should naturally be more familiar with tactics and strategy as part of their overall training, but for some reason many people reject this).

[Deathtongue]

I think it's a weird assumption that D&D campaigns shift from Star Wars to Star Trek at high levels. Why would this be the case at all?

Because the first time someone solves an adventure by doing something extremely out of the box using stuff that's on their character sheet, there's no real turning back. The first time the Enterprise-D thwarts the Death Star by beaming a mine down its thermal exhaust port or hacking the bridge controls with electronic warfare or something really crazy like revealing that Bevel Lemelisk and GM Tarkin have been replaced by a redeemed founder you can't structure challenging adventures around the assumption that people will be content to fly down the Death Star's trench and blast their way to the goal. They do have that as an option, of course, but it remains just that: an option. And ship models that only have that as an option for adventures are going to increasingly fall behind the Enterprise-D in overall usefulness even if the Millennium Falcon mk 3 can beat the Enterprise-D in straight-up combat.


You can run a dungeon crawl at level 15. You can untangle a web of political intrigue at level 3. There's no particular reason a fighter's core skillset (fighting) should be less useful at high levels. Especially when a well-equipped high-level fighter with spell support can kill basically anything in the world in under 20 seconds.

Aside from the fact that 'with spell support' obviates the fighter's idiom in much the same way that relying on pacts with demonic spirits obviates the Eberron's artificer idiom, this reasoning is a bit flawed. For one thing, there's nothing stopping Superman from slumming it and spending his time between adventures rescuing cats from trees and foiling switchknife muggings. But no one structures a fully-fleshed Superman adventure around the idea that he'll be thwarting a ring of mundane smugglers.

More importantly, however, the fighter's core skillset is less useful at higher levels. When we talk about people who have profoundly changed the world, melee badasses are not on that list. We bring up people like Napoleon Bonaparte and John Salk and Eli Whitney. Some of the world-changing figures are also melee badasses like Genghis Kahn and Alexander the Great, but they're primarily known through their leadership innovations, not how well they can shot a bow. Because, let's face it, personal combat doesn't actually do much when you scale up the adventure. The DM can structure the adventure so that characters are led by the nose to a series of combat setpieces -- in much the same way that the DM can fill the villain's lair with aquariums and have the adventuring site take place on an oil rig so that Superfriend's Aquaman and Knightboat can have something to do.


And if the campaign does go into "star trek mode," the fighter really isn't far behind. since a high-level fighter has all of the wealth of his wizard buddy with none of the expenses from building golems and clones and casting stoneskin and whatnot, he can pretty much BE Bruce Wayne at high levels. For the cost of a suit of +3 armor he can build a castle and an airship armada.

And that's the problem with the fighter idiom at higher levels. Without being given a bunch of breaks by the DM, the Batman persona increasingly becomes an anachronism while Bruce Wayne permanently takes center stage. Note that the fighter in your scenario still does the same things if he's a ranger, rogue, barbarian, or monk. The intricacies of the differences in fighting style between a high-flying acrobatic swashbuckler and a screaming warrior of rage and hate doesn't mean anything -- we just want his funds and to borrow his airship armada, thanks. He'd still be useful if his arms and limbs were chopped off, but if he permanently lost all of his possessions the party would be asking him to roll a new character.

[Deathtongue]

Which Alucard did you mention? Hellsing Alucard? Because that is a character whose abilities are based 100% on violence, intimidation, violence, being practically unkillable, violence, being able to disguise himself (in the spin off), and then some violence to top it off.

I meant Castlevania Alucard, sorry. Assuming that he levels up into Dracula, he'll eventually gain plot powers like mass cursing the countryside and raising giant clockwork castles from nowhere and commanding skeleton armies and having a Monster Mash-flavored Legion of Doom.


(I also favor the idea martial characters should naturally be more familiar with tactics and strategy as part of their overall training, but for some reason many people reject this).

Here's why I reject the idea: it spits in the eye of other fictional strategian archetypes who aren't close-range martial combatants. In fiction, wizards (Elminster, Gandalf, Elric; heck, Xykon and Redcloak), monks (Raoh, Sun Li, Darth Vader, etc.), super-scientists (Dr. Doom, Iron Man, Baron Klaus Wulfenbach, Mr. Fantastic, etc.), and even civilians are just as good or even better strategians than purely martial characters. The number of melee badass-flavored supergenerals isn't zero, but they're not consistently better than their non-martial counterparts.


That's exactly the sort of narrative power a high level fighting character can wield, the sheer threat that someone who can murder entire cities without breaking a sweat brings. Sure, some other things are there, but the focus is pretty much on the killing bit.

At some point, if you want to stay relevant by hitting things with a sword, you have to be willing to use it liberally, or the threat of the sword at least. That might mean focusing yourself on combat oriented goals, or it might mean a great deal of violence used to solve problems that could've been resolved without it.

(answered deliberately out of order)
Well, the thing is that while it's easy to come up with the idea of a character who can threaten enough violence to get power players to take them seriously, the non-magical swordsman isn't up to the task. A 3E, 4E, and 5E D&D Fighter can't just threaten kingdoms and NGO superpowers into doing what he wants with the stuff on their character sheet -- they'll just send the guard force to arrest him and throw him in the prison, even if he can and does beat 100 of them in a fair fight. He either needs to have some alternate way of threatening people (such as airship fleets, favors he can call on with deities, or powerful ritual magic) or he needs to be able to swing his sword hard enough to cleave mountains in half, Chrono Trigger-style. Either way, his original schtick of being a mortal swordsman in the vein of Madmartigan or Conan or Jaime Lannister becomes obsolete and pointless.

[bloodshed343]

And this is why I built this:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?387823-New-Fighter-Archetype-The-Hussar-(5e)-(PEACH)

It gives the fighter narrative power without devaluing his shtick.

[silveralen]

Either way, his original schtick of being a mortal swordsman in the vein of Madmartigan or Conan or Jaime Lannister becomes obsolete and pointless.

Well, if you eliminate magical abilities, status/resource power, and superhumanly implausible ability, you have nothing left. Even skills can fail this criteria, as most would end up being "mountain cut in half with a sword" or "acrobatic check to balance on a cloud" levels of separation from the original concept, or else end up simply being a mechanical way of accessing status/resource abilities, by convincing people to help you, rallying an army, or stealing a ton of gold to buy whatever could help.

Once you reject all of that, the problem is the character wants to play a lower powered character but stay relevant at high levels. Anyone that restrictive doesn't even have a way to explain how they could effect the narrative in a meaningful way unless they live in a culture where 1v1 duels solve all problems (actually, making trial by combat a thing can impart some narrative power overall worth mentioning).

If someone wants to, or envisions a limited character they are allowed to obviously, I'm just not sure how that player expects to stay relevant. He wouldn't stay relevant in a completely mundane campaign with no magic if other members began exploiting possible narrative tie ins.


And this is why I built this:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?387823-New-Fighter-Archetype-The-Hussar-(5e)-(PEACH)

It gives the fighter narrative power without devaluing his shtick.

Except he doesn't want to be a leader of men or commander, he just wants to kill things with a sword.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

High-level dungeon crawls are no harder to justify narratively than low-level ones. You'll notice than in the actual show, all those Enterprise D tactics (teleporting bombs around, hacking enemy ships) are almost always conveniently impossible (frigging tachyon interference). It doesn't take a great deal of hand-waving to come up with bs countermeasures for bs powers. "Sorry, the ancient elves warded this temple against scrying. Guess you'll have to kick down the front door the old-fashioned way." And conversely, if the party wants to approach combat laterally, they don't need Teleport and True Polymorph to do so.

And real-life fighters become famous for their leadership skills because real life is lower powered than E6. A level 20 fighter can do stuff that's inhuman even if it isn't magic. He may not be able to terrorize a town like a Mage or a dragon, but he can kill that Mage or dragon in 20 seconds. (Fine, 30 seconds without spell support, if the priest casting Bless on the sidelines really spoils the whole concept for you.) So if your DM is pitting you against villages, go wizard all the way; if you're actually fighting appropriate enemies, fighter does fine.

[Eslin]

I think it's a weird assumption that D&D campaigns shift from Star Wars to Star Trek at high levels. Why would this be the case at all? You can run a dungeon crawl at level 15. You can untangle a web of political intrigue at level 3. There's no particular reason a fighter's core skillset (fighting) should be less useful at high levels. Especially when a well-equipped high-level fighter with spell support can kill basically anything in the world in under 20 seconds.

And if the campaign does go into "star trek mode," the fighter really isn't far behind. since a high-level fighter has all of the wealth of his wizard buddy with none of the expenses from building golems and clones and casting stoneskin and whatnot, he can pretty much BE Bruce Wayne at high levels. For the cost of a suit of +3 armor he can build a castle and an airship armada.
High level campaigns naturally do as the tools the players - well, the casters - have increases, the challenges necessarily become more intricate. Some problems can be solved by hitting things with a sharped stick still, but many others can't.

And wealth wise, no. There are so many ways to make heaps of money with spellcasting - incredibly expensive poisons created for free, incredibly complicated goods crafted in an instant (a spyglass is 1000 gold, but is only a small quantity of metal and glass), true polymorphing things into gold or other valuable materials.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

First off, yes, a lot of those spells that let you make spyglasses and stuff for free are just insanely broken and would have to be cut out of the game or heavily modified and policed if you wanted any kind of economy at high levels. You can mitigate it by saying there isn't a market for 5000 spyglasses, but that just encourages more diversified and intricate wankery.

On high-level play being qualitatively different, though, I'm not sure I see how this happens. You're saying the fighter guy WANTS to fight things, right? So he's on board to kick down the front door. Tell him the dark lich king has the princess in the top floor of his evil tower and he'll happily slice his way through. If someone mentions flying to the top or teleporting, meh, tell them there's too much tachyon interference or whatever, and he won't ask questions. But apparently the rest of the party used to enjoy doing this but now wants to skip all those carefully choreographed encounters and sweet loot because they've opted for a different playstyle? Well shoot, that's not a system rules problem, that's a player expectation problem, like bringing a social-face bard with expertise in performance and medicine to a dungeon crawl. The fighter player can accept his Waynification and start enjoying his airship armada and hordes of adoring conscripts, or he can play on his iphone until it's time to stab something, or he can reroll a concept that fits the low-combat political intrigue game everyone else apparently wants to play now.

[archaeo]

First off, yes, a lot of those spells that let you make spyglasses and stuff for free are just insanely broken and would have to be cut out of the game or heavily modified and policed if you wanted any kind of economy at high levels. You can mitigate it by saying there isn't a market for 5000 spyglasses, but that just encourages more diversified and intricate wankery..

I think the easiest way to head this off is to give your players a steely look and ask them if they really want to play Capitalism: The RPG instead of D&D.

[Gov. Sandwiches]

From what I've gathered that this Martials vs Casters debate boils down to people who actually enjoyed/cut their teeth on 4e are complaining because their abilities have been replaced with "I swing my broadsword!"

Perhaps I'm just a newb to this board, lost in the forest but I'm glad the silly abilities have been replaced with melee attacks. Fighting with a broadsword is cool on its own without having to jazz it up with something that reads like a MTG card.

[Eslin]

From what I've gathered that this Martials vs Casters debate boils down to people who actually enjoyed/cut their teeth on 4e are complaining because their abilities have been replaced with "I swing my broadsword!"
4e did very well making balanced, tactical combat. It sunk because it cut far too much out of other areas of the game to do so and screwed up the original set of maths, but that doesn't mean that the things it did well are suddenly invalidated. That all their abilities were replaced with "I swing my broadsword!" is an absolutely valid complaint - there was no reason that different complexities of martial characters couldn't be accommodated.


Perhaps I'm just a newb to this board, lost in the forest but I'm glad the silly abilities have been replaced with melee attacks. Fighting with a broadsword is cool on its own without having to jazz it up with something that reads like a MTG card.
Why were they silly? And why shouldn't those who preferred the 4e and late 3.5 style of martial have options?


I think the easiest way to head this off is to give your players a steely look and ask them if they really want to play Capitalism: The RPG instead of D&D.
Some people really do. I've had a party that I figured would end up getting involved in an ongoing war between two dragons that were using a kingdom as their battleground and ended up spending the game setting up a trading company.

[Knaight]

From what I've gathered that this Martials vs Casters debate boils down to people who actually enjoyed/cut their teeth on 4e are complaining because their abilities have been replaced with "I swing my broadsword!"

Perhaps I'm just a newb to this board, lost in the forest but I'm glad the silly abilities have been replaced with melee attacks. Fighting with a broadsword is cool on its own without having to jazz it up with something that reads like a MTG card.

4e is hardly the only system to be more in depth than a generic attack mechanic and some movement, and plenty of the other systems involved don't "read like a MTG card". For instance, there's GURPS. GURPS has a few attack options, which mostly boil down to how much risk one wants to take (e.g. lunging and leaving a bit of an opening versus attacking more conservatively). It also has an active defense system, with three defenses - Dodge, Parry, and Block. Dodge is dodging, parrying is parrying with a weapon, block is using a shield. The defenses take cumulative penalties the more they are used, and so using them is tactical. Is it worth using your shield to block that attack, when it gives the archer a better shot later, or should you use your sword? Should you even bother to dodge that arrow with the amount of armor you have, or should you keep your attention on the halberdier in front of you who's weapon is too heavy for you to parry effectively and which is going to really hurt if it lands? So on and so forth.

I do think GURPS takes it a bit far in places - choosing specifically whether to cut or thrust is a bit much, one second rounds are kind of short, I'm not too fond of facing, there are a lot of little rules involved, and it's basically just GURPS being GURPS - but it does highlight a way to make combat more engaging without it being in the style of 4e.

To go on a bit of a tangent here, one of the things I find frustrating about these forums occasionally is that 5e generally only gets compared to other editions of D&D. If any aspect of it is the best out of D&D it must be good, if other editions of D&D poorly implemented some concept then the concept is inherently clumsy to implement, if something is disliked it's because someone things that some other edition of D&D did it better, so on and so forth. 5e was made this year, it has close to 40 years of previous games to draw on. GURPS 1e was a very prevalent game in the early 80's, something could have been learned from it at some point, as regards skills, combat, etc. HERO has been out for decades as well, something could have been learned from it as far as spell and power implementation. In every D&D subsystem, I can think of half a dozen games they could have taken a page out of. It's entirely fair to compare these games to it, as every one of them is something that was available to the designers to learn from.

[Gov. Sandwiches]

I do think GURPS takes it a bit far in places - choosing specifically whether to cut or thrust is a bit much, one second rounds are kind of short, I'm not too fond of facing, there are a lot of little rules involved, and it's basically just GURPS being GURPS - but it does highlight a way to make combat more engaging without it being in the style of 4e.

Never enjoyed GURPS. Especially the combat. Too complicated, easy for players to load up on disadvantages they don't RP so they can shoot lightning out of their faces, and I always felt like the rules were completely arbitrary and players and DMs would pick which ones they wanted to use based on convenience/advantage. It lends itself to lawyering, which I know is part of the game for most folks but something I really detest.

You have a great point that people don't cross compare D&D with other systems, but I think they aimed for simplicity this time. Most indie PNP seem to be very complicated as a matter of course, but I'm new to the hobby.




Why were they silly? And why shouldn't those who preferred the 4e and late 3.5 style of martial have options?


It's kind of pointless to try to explain why I think it was silly if you didn't already think they were.

[pwykersotz]

4e is hardly the only system to be more in depth than a generic attack mechanic and some movement, and plenty of the other systems involved don't "read like a MTG card". For instance, there's GURPS. GURPS has a few attack options, which mostly boil down to how much risk one wants to take (e.g. lunging and leaving a bit of an opening versus attacking more conservatively). It also has an active defense system, with three defenses - Dodge, Parry, and Block. Dodge is dodging, parrying is parrying with a weapon, block is using a shield. The defenses take cumulative penalties the more they are used, and so using them is tactical. Is it worth using your shield to block that attack, when it gives the archer a better shot later, or should you use your sword? Should you even bother to dodge that arrow with the amount of armor you have, or should you keep your attention on the halberdier in front of you who's weapon is too heavy for you to parry effectively and which is going to really hurt if it lands? So on and so forth.

See, this is interesting because I'm not sure how you would combine it with a simpler system. A lot of D&D gamers (including several at my own table) sit down to play once a week. They play the game, go home, and don't think about it until next game. The system you described would cripple them with complexity if it were mandatory (one of them always forgets to subtract 5 for each extra attack in a full round, 3.5 obviously). So the trick would be making an optional complex system. One that offered different incentives from the regular style. But my attempts to create one in the past have been very frustrating.

Myself, I have been going the opposite route. I've been trying to find a way to elminate spells entirely and make magic easier. I'm currently gearing up to try adapting Elements of Magic to 5e. We'll see how it goes.

[metaridley18]

Never enjoyed GURPS. Especially the combat. Too complicated, easy for players to load up on disadvantages they don't RP so they can shoot lightning out of their faces, and I always felt like the rules were completely arbitrary and players and DMs would pick which ones they wanted to use based on convenience/advantage. It lends itself to lawyering, which I know is part of the game for most folks but something I really detest.

You have a great point that people don't cross compare D&D with other systems, but I think they aimed for simplicity this time. Most indie PNP seem to be very complicated as a matter of course, but I'm new to the hobby.


GURPS has a very interesting and deadly combat system. It also requires a very hands on GM. Our GM is an actual lawyer, so it worked well. The rest of our group are engineers so we don't get too caught up in complicated systems.

We are keen on the DMG optional combat rules which add disarm and facing. Facing in combat goes a long way towards making combat feel more interesting than just "I attack", AND gives more meaning to the myriad of positioning options so I encourage any 4E players to try it.

It is nowhere near perfect, but it helps.

[metaridley18]

See, this is interesting because I'm not sure how you would combine it with a simpler system. A lot of D&D gamers (including several at my own table) sit down to play once a week. They play the game, go home, and don't think about it until next game. The system you described would cripple them with complexity if it were mandatory (one of them always forgets to subtract 5 for each extra attack in a full round, 3.5 obviously). So the trick would be making an optional complex system. One that offered different incentives from the regular style. But my attempts to create one in the past have been very frustrating.



Facing goes a long way. Obviously groups that like the simple combat need not apply.

[Knaight]

Never enjoyed GURPS. Especially the combat. Too complicated, easy for players to load up on disadvantages they don't RP so they can shoot lightning out of their faces, and I always felt like the rules were completely arbitrary and players and DMs would pick which ones they wanted to use based on convenience/advantage. It lends itself to lawyering, which I know is part of the game for most folks but something I really detest.

You have a great point that people don't cross compare D&D with other systems, but I think they aimed for simplicity this time. Most indie PNP seem to be very complicated as a matter of course, but I'm new to the hobby.

I'd say that independent games usually lean light. There are exceptions (GURPS, HERO, Burning Wheel), but for every one of those you have a Chronica Feudalis or Fudge or Savage Worlds, all of which are lighter than D&D. I'd actually consider D&D 5e a fairly rules heavy system, though it is nowhere near where GURPS gets.