Easy battlemaster fix

[Eslin]

A player mentioned this to me today, and it seems that this fixes the lack of superiority dice pretty much perfectly - would the ability to sacrifice attacks (only get 2 out of your 3 attacks as a level 11 fighter, for instance) in order to gain a superiority die for every attack sacrificed that must be used before the end of your next turn be balanced?

[Giant2005]

I think that would be balanced as long as the attack only took the effect of the maneuver, not the extra damage. Otherwise, depending on the weapon being used, the roll made and the AC of your enemy, you might profit in damage by sacrificing an attack in this way (As well as getting a rider effect).

[Eslin]

I think that would be balanced as long as the attack only took the effect of the maneuver, not the extra damage. Otherwise, depending on the weapon being used, the roll made and the AC of your enemy, you might profit in damage by sacrificing an attack in this way (As well as getting a rider effect).

The bonus damage is d8 at 3, d10 at 10 and d12 at 18. Hardly going to compete with weapon damage+attribute+extra sources. Even at the point at which it's closest (level 3, where it'll just be weapon+3 damage vs 1d8) the weapon damage is a chunk higher.

[Giant2005]

The bonus damage is d8 at 3, d10 at 10 and d12 at 18. Hardly going to compete with weapon damage+attribute+extra sources. Even at the point at which it's closest (level 3, where it'll just be weapon+3 damage vs 1d8) the weapon damage is a chunk higher.

Using that system, if I roll a 20 I am going to sacrifice an attack for that extra 2D8-2D12 damage. It will be more damage than I would otherwise do as well as getting a bonus rider effect. It is pure win. The same is true if I am fighting something with a high AC that I am only hitting on a 16+. Odds are that attack being sacrificed isn't going to hit anyway so I am going to add that extra damage and the rider effect to the hit that I was lucky enough to land. If I am using a whip for the extra reach or a low damage weapon with a one time use rider effect (Like a bear trap or something) then I will gladly give up an attack for the extra superiority die due to the 1D12 providing more damage than I would get otherwise as well as a bonus rider effect.
If the damage comes out of the calculation, then the above options are actual options and less mandatory (Mandatory in the sense that any intelligent person would be compelled to take that option). More options is good, mandatory obligations are not quite so good.

[Eslin]

Using that system, if I roll a 20 I am going to sacrifice an attack for that extra 2D8-2D12 damage. It will be more damage than I would otherwise do as well as getting a bonus rider effect. It is pure win. The same is true if I am fighting something with a high AC that I am only hitting on a 16+. Odds are that attack being sacrificed isn't going to hit anyway so I am going to add that extra damage and the rider effect to the hit that I was lucky enough to land. If I am using a whip for the extra reach or a low damage weapon with a one time use rider effect (Like a bear trap or something) then I will gladly give up an attack for the extra superiority die due to the 1D12 providing more damage than I would get otherwise as well as a bonus rider effect.
If the damage comes out of the calculation, then the above options are actual options and less mandatory (Mandatory in the sense that any intelligent person would be compelled to take that option). More options is good, mandatory obligations are not quite so good.

You're... basing this on always rolling 20s? Again, 1d8 vs 1d10+3 is not a pure win. And isn't the rest of what you said a good thing? Fighters already have mandatory options, it's called pressing the attack button over and over forever.

[Urpriest]

You're... basing this on always rolling 20s? Again, 1d8 vs 1d10+3 is not a pure win. And isn't the rest of what you said a good thing? Fighters already have mandatory options, it's called pressing the attack button over and over forever.

I think the question is, when do you decide to use this? At the beginning of your turn, or after the first attack hits?

[Balor777]

A player mentioned this to me today, and it seems that this fixes the lack of superiority dice pretty much perfectly - would the ability to sacrifice attacks (only get 2 out of your 3 attacks as a level 11 fighter, for instance) in order to gain a superiority die for every attack sacrificed that must be used before the end of your next turn be balanced?

Its balanced yes.I like it actualy, but i would give it as a feature at level 7+.

[Eslin]

I think the question is, when do you decide to use this? At the beginning of your turn, or after the first attack hits?

You can choose it after rolling 20s, which is one of the hidden strengths of maneuvers, but it still doesn't favour the superiority die vs an entire attack in terms of damage.


Its balanced yes.I like it actualy, but i would give it as a feature at level 7+.

Somewhat curious, why? It naturally has scaling points - 5, 11 and 20. Will consider 7, but is there any reason not to give it to them at the start?

[archaeo]

This seems like a solid way to ensure that the Battle Master uses a maneuver practically every single turn after level 5.

Edited to add: it also really doesn't "fix" Battle Master in any meaningful way for those who have criticized it. All it does is increase the availability of superiority dice. It doesn't provide a better scale of maneuvers, doesn't expand the Fighter's out-of-combat utility options, and doesn't provide anything approaching the Warlord flavor a substantial portion of players wanted from this design space.

It's a clever little house rule, though, as long as your main issue with BM is the number of times it gets to throw superiority dice.

[Eslin]

This seems like a solid way to ensure that the Battle Master uses a maneuver practically every single turn after level 5.

Edited to add: it also really doesn't "fix" Battle Master in any meaningful way for those who have criticized it. All it does is increase the availability of superiority dice. It doesn't provide a better scale of maneuvers, doesn't expand the Fighter's out-of-combat utility options, and doesn't provide anything approaching the Warlord flavor a substantial portion of players wanted from this design space.

It's a clever little house rule, though, as long as your main issue with BM is the number of times it gets to throw superiority dice.

Warlord needs to come from a warlord class, and utility wise it's a problem beyond just the battlemaster subclass. Not many simple changes fix 'I can teleport! Fly! Breathe underwater!' vs 'I can hit things with a stick!'

[Giant2005]

It's a clever little house rule, though, as long as your main issue with BM is the number of times it gets to throw superiority dice.
That is my issue with the class and this fix would encourage me to play one (Whereas I would never consider it otherwise) but that is also the problem with it. By giving the Battlemaster sustainability, you take away the Champion's niche - it wouldn't be an issue if the opportunity cost was large enough to maintain balance but I don't think that is the case. It needs marginally reduced in some way or something else needs given to the Champion as compensation.

[Eslin]

That is my issue with the class and this fix would encourage me to play one (Whereas I would never consider it otherwise) but that is also the problem with it. By giving the Battlemaster sustainability, you take away the Champion's niche - it wouldn't be an issue if the opportunity cost was large enough to maintain balance but I don't think that is the case. It needs marginally reduced in some way or something else needs given to the Champion as compensation.

I'd say the latter. The champion sucks. I know it sucks, you know it sucks, the developers knew it sucked - nothing should ever have to be brought down to the champion's level. Buffing the champion's fine, go nuts, but never compare anything to the base champion. Gameplay wise, the champion has no niche - its niche is a metagame one, it's for players who don't want anything more complex.

[Giant2005]

I'd say the latter. The champion sucks. I know it sucks, you know it sucks, the developers knew it sucked - nothing should ever have to be brought down to the champion's level. Buffing the champion's fine, go nuts, but never compare anything to the base champion. Gameplay wise, the champion has no niche - its niche is a metagame one, it's for players who don't want anything more complex.

The Champion's niche isa Fighter class that doesn't lose all of its subclass abilities after 4-6 uses. Its niche is sustainability and it does that very well. The whole reason you are suggesting this fix is because the Battlemaster is hugely lacking in that sense. You are essentially trying to make the Battlemaster more Champion-ish while simultaneously deriding the class you are trying to emulate.

[Eslin]

The Champion's niche isa Fighter class that doesn't lose all of its subclass abilities after 4-6 uses. Its niche is sustainability and it does that very well. The whole reason you are suggesting this fix is because the Battlemaster is hugely lacking in that sense. You are essentially trying to make the Battlemaster more Champion-ish while simultaneously deriding the class you are trying to emulate.

No it isn't. Its abilities are always on, true, but they're such minor buffs that even the basic battlemaster does more damage than the champion does over the course of the day. It is focused on sustainability in the same way that the 3.5 samurai was - technically true, but so weak that it's worthless.

Crit on a 19 or 20, wow. That's totally worth being the only offensive ability it gets until level 15.

[Giant2005]

No it isn't. Its abilities are always on, true, but they're such minor buffs that even the basic battlemaster does more damage than the champion does over the course of the day. It is focused on sustainability in the same way that the 3.5 samurai was - technically true, but so weak that it's worthless.

Crit on a 19 or 20, wow. That's totally worth being the only offensive ability it gets until level 15.

The buffs aren't that minor. The regenerations is awesome enough that is doesn't need defended and the critical on 18+ brings a lot of damage to the table. A level 20 Champion with max Strength and wielding Hazirawn inflicts 91.98 damage on average to an AC 20 monster. A Battlemaster with the same setup inflicts 81.9 to that same monster - a Battlemaster needs to expend more than 1 Superiority diw each turn to keep up with the Champion's damage.
You might not like the Champion playstyle but that doesn't mean they aren't experts at what they do. In fact when it comes to sustained DPS, no other class/subclass combo can compete.

[CrusaderJoe]

Still doesn't fix the fact that once you get into mid or high levels your maneuvers are crap. Except for menecing strike (though the duration is crap) all the other maneuvers are very very meh for a mid to high level fantasy character to be performing.

There is no easy fix for the battle master because you need to make some sort of scaling maneuvers or just better maneuvers. Battle master just doesn't get the same mileage out of what they are spending. Even if they are a short rest mechanic their maneuvers and dice just aren't worth a short rest mechanic.

While the fighter gets these maneuvers the warlock (short rest caster) gets... Hold Person, Misty Step, Hex, Suggestion, Banishment... You don't need to copy these abilities but notice what they do. As the warlock levels, they automatically get better. The warlock gets a lot less slots to use per short rest (but they have great at-will damage and invocations) but their refresh mechanic is WORTH what they are spending.

In conjunction with multiclassing or whatever the Battle Master makes a decent/good supplement, but alone it just doesn't stack up to other abilities.

/my 2 cp

[Giant2005]

Still doesn't fix the fact that once you get into mid or high levels your maneuvers are crap. Except for menecing strike (though the duration is crap) all the other maneuvers are very very meh for a mid to high level fantasy character to be performing.

There is no easy fix for the battle master because you need to make some sort of scaling maneuvers or just better maneuvers. Battle master just doesn't get the same mileage out of what they are spending. Even if they are a short rest mechanic their maneuvers and dice just aren't worth a short rest mechanic.

While the fighter gets these maneuvers the warlock (short rest caster) gets... Hold Person, Misty Step, Hex, Suggestion, Banishment... You don't need to copy these abilities but notice what they do. As the warlock levels, they automatically get better. The warlock gets a lot less slots to use per short rest (but they have great at-will damage and invocations) but their refresh mechanic is WORTH what they are spending.

In conjunction with multiclassing or whatever the Battle Master makes a decent/good supplement, but alone it just doesn't stack up to other abilities.

/my 2 cp

Battlemaster Maneuvers scale in terms of number of attacks and the damage of those attacks.
In any given action a Warlock has to choose between dealing damage or using an effect-based spell. The Battlemaster doesn't have to make that choice, he can get his effect off while still inflicting reliable damage, so those effects have to be less powerful than that which the Warlock is privy to.

[CrusaderJoe]

Battlemaster Maneuvers scale in terms of number of attacks and the damage of those attacks.
In any given action a Warlock has to choose between dealing damage or using an effect-based spell. The Battlemaster doesn't have to make that choice, he can get his effect off while still inflicting reliable damage, so those effects have to be less powerful than that which the Warlock is privy to.

That isn't scaling, that is just higher rate of fire. There is a huge difference.

If an ability scales then it gets better as you level. None of the BM abilities get better as you level, many of them stay the same or get worse just by proxy of the creatures you are now fighting at higher level.

[Chronos]

Battlemaster Maneuvers scale in terms of number of attacks and the damage of those attacks.
In any given action a Warlock has to choose between dealing damage or using an effect-based spell.
Or he can use a Repelling Blast and do both. And that's all day long, without expending any resources. OK, the warlock doesn't have as many options for effects to add on top of damage, but his options for doing one or the other are still pretty good.

[Giant2005]

That isn't scaling, that is just higher rate of fire. There is a huge difference.

If an ability scales then it gets better as you level. None of the BM abilities get better as you level, many of them stay the same or get worse just by proxy of the creatures you are now fighting at higher level.

The Superiority die goes up in value as well as the character's damage via ability mod increases and theoretically, better equipment. Feats could also add a layer of scaling with respect to those attacks and thanks to bounded accuracy, you have a relatively higher chance of hitting your target with the maneuver at higher levels.

[CrusaderJoe]

The Superiority die goes up in value as well as the character's damage via ability mod increases and theoretically, better equipment. Feats could also add a layer of scaling with respect to those attacks and thanks to bounded accuracy, you have a relatively higher chance of hitting your target with the maneuver at higher levels.

Feats are optional. Saying that you need a feat to make a core ability scale is pretty weak sauce.

The damage die does go up on average, by 1 point each time the die increases... Wow... Great scaling there. And yet the maneuver itself does not scale.

Menecing strike isn't about dealing damage. The damage from the SPD is a rider effect. If menecing strike scaled then the maneuver effect would get better. Maybe you get to target more foes with the menecing part (not the damage) or perhaps the duration increases?

The SP dice causes some maneuver to scale, weakly, such as precision strike and parry but for maneuvers where they are a rider effect... The maneuvers don't scale.

[Eslin]

The buffs aren't that minor. The regenerations is awesome enough that is doesn't need defended and the critical on 18+ brings a lot of damage to the table. A level 20 Champion with max Strength and wielding Hazirawn inflicts 91.98 damage on average to an AC 20 monster. A Battlemaster with the same setup inflicts 81.9 to that same monster - a Battlemaster needs to expend more than 1 Superiority diw each turn to keep up with the Champion's damage.
You might not like the Champion playstyle but that doesn't mean they aren't experts at what they do. In fact when it comes to sustained DPS, no other class/subclass combo can compete.

It really does. The champion gets the next crit increase at 15 and survivor at 18, the levels in which that kind of sustained power has long ceased being relevant. One of martials main strength is their endurance earlier in the game when casters can't just use things like skelepal hordes to do all the sustain for them - that late in the game they're comparing against things like casters turning the entire party into ancient dragons as a form of sustain. They are not experts at what they do, because what they do doesn't fill any useful niche.

[Giant2005]

Feats are optional. Saying that you need a feat to make a core ability scale is pretty weak sauce.

The damage die does go up on average, by 1 point each time the die increases... Wow... Great scaling there. And yet the maneuver itself does not scale.

Menecing strike isn't about dealing damage. The damage from the SPD is a rider effect. If menecing strike scaled then the maneuver effect would get better. Maybe you get to target more foes with the menecing part (not the damage) or perhaps the duration increases?

The SP dice causes some maneuver to scale, weakly, such as precision strike and parry but for maneuvers where they are a rider effect... The maneuvers don't scale.

Sure that would all be fair as long as you uncoupled them from the attack action and treated them exactly like spells (But in that case you may as well just play a Warlock). Otherwise my statement holds true - as long as the attack that the Maneuver is being triggered with is scaling, then the combined effect of the attack + maneuver has scaled.
It is basically like what Chronos alluded to earlier regarding Eldritch Blast and Repelling Blast. From 1-20, Repelling Blast has the same 10' knockback per blast but as long as it is tied to Eldritch Blast, it scales by virtue of EB's scaling. It doesn't need to scale twice and neither does the Battlemaster.

[CrusaderJoe]

It really does. The champion gets the next crit increase at 15 and survivor at 18, the levels in which that kind of sustained power has long ceased being relevant. One of martials main strength is their endurance earlier in the game when casters can't just use things like skelepal hordes to do all the sustain for them - that late in the game they're comparing against things like casters turning the entire party into ancient dragons as a form of sustain. They are not experts at what they do, because what they do doesn't fill any useful niche.

Back in the day this sort of caster stuff would be called cheese, now it is base line abilities.

[Giant2005]

It really does. The champion gets the next crit increase at 15 and survivor at 18, the levels in which that kind of sustained power has long ceased being relevant. One of martials main strength is their endurance earlier in the game when casters can't just use things like skelepal hordes to do all the sustain for them - that late in the game they're comparing against things like casters turning the entire party into ancient dragons as a form of sustain. They are not experts at what they do, because what they do doesn't fill any useful niche.

You are comparing them to casters? If you want to consider the subclass then compare it to the other subclasses (Like I just did with respect to the Battlemaster). Your comparison doesn't really have anything to do with the Champion - your comparison highlights what you consider to be issues between caster types and martial types in general.

[MadBear]

You are comparing them to casters? If you want to consider the subclass then compare it to the other subclasses (Like I just did with respect to the Battlemaster). Your comparison doesn't really have anything to do with the Champion - your comparison highlights what you consider to be issues between caster types and martial types in general.

I think that's kinda Eslin's point though....

[Giant2005]

I think that's kinda Eslin's point though....

Unless his point is that he thinks the Champion is a crappy Fighter because it doesn't cast spells, his statement was irrelevant. If that was his point, then I can't imagine why anyone would make an issue of it in the first place - I can only speak for myself, but if I wanted to play something that had a diverse range of spells, I wouldn't be choosing to play a Champion in the first place.

[MadBear]

My guess, (since I'm obviously not Eslin),

is to allow the BM to use it's slightly wider array of abilities more often, so that moves towards having at least a chance of having extra usable options more often, compared to a caster. As others have said, even then it's no where near as diverse as the spell-casters, but it's a step in that direction.

[Eslin]

Unless his point is that he thinks the Champion is a crappy Fighter because it doesn't cast spells, his statement was irrelevant. If that was his point, then I can't imagine why anyone would make an issue of it in the first place - I can only speak for myself, but if I wanted to play something that had a diverse range of spells, I wouldn't be choosing to play a Champion in the first place.

The champion's crap because its abilities are crap. Compare it to a monk, note that the monk contributes in many areas where the champion cannot contribute at all. The champion only has minor passive abilities, making it a crappy fighter.

[Giant2005]

The champion's crap because its abilities are crap. Compare it to a monk, note that the monk contributes in many areas where the champion cannot contribute at all. The champion only has minor passive abilities, making it a crappy fighter.

Doing the best sustained damage doesn't make you a crappy Fighter... It makes you a top tier Fighter that is unsurpassed in prolongued combat. You are complaining about the lack of toys which granted, doesn't mesh with everyone's playstyles but that doesn't make it any less useful or any less powerful. It just means the class isn't your preference.

[Eslin]

Doing the best sustained damage doesn't make you a crappy Fighter... It makes you a top tier Fighter that is unsurpassed in prolongued combat. You are complaining about the lack of toys which granted, doesn't mesh with everyone's playstyles but that doesn't make it any less useful or any less powerful. It just means the class isn't your preference.

But it is less powerful. It has no versatility, no utility, no burst, no aoe, only the ability to deal and take damage and it's not very impressive in those areas either, spending almost its entire career with 19-20 crit range as its only real ability. Even an extremely limited class like the barbarian that can't contribute anything near what a rogue or paladin or what have you can completely outstrips the champion, taking hits better and dealing more in return with at least a little utility. The champion sucks, it's not my playstyle that's the issue.

[Person_Man]

I think its a reasonable idea. I would tweak it slightly for my games. Maybe:

Eliminate base superiority dice. You get 0, and nothing is recharged with a Short Rest.

When you use the attack Action while in combat encounter with one or more hostile enemies, you may sacrifice 1 attack to gain 1 superiority die. You may do this twice per attack Action starting at level 5 (sacrificing up to 2 attacks for up to 2 dice), 3 times at level 11, and four times at level 20. Even if you sacrifice all of your attacks for superiority dice, you still count as taking the attack Action for things that require it to be triggered, such as Two Weapon Fighting or Shield Master.

Any superiority dice that are not used by the end of combat are lost. Your DM decides when a combat encounter starts and ends, and what counts as a hostile enemy. But you can otherwise build them up to gain multiple dice as needed, up to a maximum of 1 + 1/3 your Fighter class level (rounded up, max 7).

Your Superiority Die start as d8. They increase to d10 at 10th level, d12 at 15th level, and d20 at 18th level. (Replacing Relentless ability, which is garbage).

When you take a Long Rest, you may change your selection of Maneuvers Known. (You're not forever locked into your choices).

Martial Adept Feat is eliminated.

So basically you can use Maneuvers at will, but always at a cost of giving up 1 attack per die. This may seem like a bad trade at first, but remember that you're sacrificing the possibility of a successful attack for the assurance of getting a superiority die, which always adds to your success rate or damage or both.

[Once a Fool]

I think its a reasonable idea. I would tweak it slightly for my games. Maybe:

Eliminate base superiority dice. You get 0, and nothing is recharged with a Short Rest.

When you use the attack Action while in combat encounter with one or more hostile enemies, you may sacrifice 1 attack to gain 1 superiority die. You may do this twice per attack Action starting at level 5 (sacrificing up to 2 attacks for up to 2 dice), 3 times at level 11, and four times at level 20. Even if you sacrifice all of your attacks for superiority dice, you still count as taking the attack Action for things that require it to be triggered, such as Two Weapon Fighting or Shield Master.

Any superiority dice that are not used by the end of combat are lost. Your DM decides when a combat encounter starts and ends, and what counts as a hostile enemy. But you can otherwise build them up to gain multiple dice as needed, up to a maximum of 1 + 1/3 your Fighter class level (rounded up, max 7).

Your Superiority Die start as d8. They increase to d10 at 10th level, d12 at 15th level, and d20 at 18th level. (Replacing Relentless ability, which is garbage).

When you take a Long Rest, you may change your selection of Maneuvers Known. (You're not forever locked into your choices).

Martial Adept Feat is eliminated.

So basically you can use Maneuvers at will, but always at a cost of giving up 1 attack per die. This may seem like a bad trade at first, but remember that you're sacrificing the possibility of a successful attack for the assurance of getting a superiority die, which always adds to your success rate or damage or both.

All of this takes away one of the Battle Master's greatest strengths: the ability to drastically shorten a combat by going nova (action surge + multiple superiority dice expenditures) right at the start of a combat.

[Person_Man]

All of this takes away one of the Battle Master's greatest strengths: the ability to drastically shorten a combat by going nova (action surge + multiple superiority dice expenditures) right at the start of a combat.

That's correct. But I prefer a more flexible sub-class that has interesting things to do every round in place of the ability to go nova once per short rest, which every fighter can already do pretty strongly with Action Surge anyway.

Plus you can still go super nova. You just have to wait until the second round of combat to do so (giving up all your attacks on first round, then using a bunch of dice on the second), which is a more interesting niche that doesn't exist in other subclasses. (Unlike first round nova, which can be done by the Assassin and Sorcerer as well).

[Santra]

My group lets the battlemaster regain a superiority die when they make an attack that misses.

[Easy_Lee]

I would simplify the rule to this:
You may sacrifice an extra attack to use it as a superiority die on a maneuver you use this round.

That makes thing much more clear, allows players to prepare a superiority die for an expected opportunity attack or parry, and gives BM fighters a real edge when it comes to actually using maneuvers.

I like this idea. It reminds me a lot of the sorcerer ability to turn spell slots into metamagic. And metamagic has a lot in common with BM maneuvers, if you think about it. Further, it scales with level, as giving up one extra attack has less proportional impact on total DPR as you gain more attacks.

Would definitely use.

[Eslin]

I would simplify the rule to this:
You may sacrifice an extra attack to use it as a superiority die on a maneuver you use this round.

That makes thing much more clear, allows players to prepare a superiority die for an expected opportunity attack or parry, and gives BM fighters a real edge when it comes to actually using maneuvers.

I like this idea. It reminds me a lot of the sorcerer ability to turn spell slots into metamagic. And metamagic has a lot in common with BM maneuvers, if you think about it. Further, it scales with level, as giving up one extra attack has less proportional impact on total DPR as you gain more attacks.

Would definitely use.

That's identical to my rule except that the die is lost at the start of your next turn instead of the end. Why not keep it at the end? And why limit it to one?

[Forum Explorer]

Well there are two potential changes I think I'd try,

Relentless become 'You gain 1d3+1 dice when you roll initiative and have none'


And similar to yours, 'you can spend your turn reassessing the combat, gaining 1 dice (per attack given up)' IE, you get the ability at level one and each time you get an extra attack it scales by another dice. But it's all or nothing. You have to not attack at all to get it. On the other hand, the dice last.


But I want to see how Battlemaster actually plays as is before wanting to change anything.

[Easy_Lee]

That's identical to my rule except that the die is lost at the start of your next turn instead of the end. Why not keep it at the end? And why limit it to one?

Identical but simplified. I had to read yours twice to fully understand, and really only had a problem with the language. My language actually does allow more than one attack to be sacrificed (doesn't disallow multiple uses of the feature), and would lead to players losing the dice at the end of the round (worded: "this round"). Like you said, it's the same.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Well there are two potential changes I think I'd try,

Relentless become 'You gain 1d3+1 dice when you roll initiative and have none'


And similar to yours, 'you can spend your turn reassessing the combat, gaining 1 dice (per attack given up)' IE, you get the ability at level one and each time you get an extra attack it scales by another dice. But it's all or nothing. You have to not attack at all to get it. On the other hand, the dice last.


But I want to see how Battlemaster actually plays as is before wanting to change anything.

I'm playing a ranged Battlemaster right now myself. I'm hanging around at 5th level and doing pretty solid but I wonder how I am gonna hold up at higher levels. Pushing and trip attack are nice BFC right now but Huge Str/Size could make them irrelevant. Goading and Frightening look like my best bets with precision helping land "power attack" shots

The thing that bothers me most is with enough HP bloat the battles may stretch on so long that 1 Sdie a round won't make a big difference. Getting a few more when running out would make a world of difference to me

[Wolfsraine]

I would actually just allow a battlemaster to spend their action to regain X amount of dice.

[archaeo]

My guess, (since I'm obviously not Eslin),

is to allow the BM to use it's slightly wider array of abilities more often, so that moves towards having at least a chance of having extra usable options more often, compared to a caster. As others have said, even then it's no where near as diverse as the spell-casters, but it's a step in that direction.

As a point of order, if you assume that a Battle Master gets two short rests per adventuring day, they have roughly the same number of opportunities per day to use their class resource as any other class. This is, undoubtedly, an intentional thing; every character gets between 18ish and 25ish limited resource points for their limited resource power. BM probably get somewhat fewer because the game knows you'll be using all those resources in combat, whereas virtually every caster will be expected to split their limited resources between in-combat and out-of-combat spells.

I think it's totally reasonable to take issue with BM or Fighters as a whole. It's clearly a design decision that gets under some people's skins. But this doesn't really do much to move the needle, as far as I'm concerned, and just ends up being a pretty substantial buff that does nothing to address the actual problems people have.

[Chronos]

You absolutely have to make sure that extra dice gained this way don't last past the end of the combat, or you'll have battlemasters deliberately seeking out weak enemies to build up their dice for the tough ones.

[CrusaderJoe]

You absolutely have to make sure that extra dice gained this way don't last past the end of the combat, or you'll have battlemasters deliberately seeking out weak enemies to build up their dice for the tough ones.

Weak enemies can still be a threat, sure you may go looking for 1 goblin but you may fine 10 or more. Hordes of low CR creatures are deadly at high levels. Temporary dice may work but seeking out weak creatures may not be a smart idea...

[TrollCapAmerica]

You absolutely have to make sure that extra dice gained this way don't last past the end of the combat, or you'll have battlemasters deliberately seeking out weak enemies to build up their dice for the tough ones.

I'm training for my next fight and I have Profession Butcher. What do you mean I'm metagaming?

[mephnick]

I would actually just allow a battlemaster to spend their action to regain X amount of dice.

Agreed. This is how Tome of Battle classes worked (Adaptive Style) and people seem to want to emulate that with Battlemasters, so....

It's the easiest, most thematic solution isn't it?

[Easy_Lee]

Agreed. This is how Tome of Battle classes worked (Adaptive Style) and people seem to want to emulate that with Battlemasters, so....

It's the easiest, most thematic solution isn't it?

Thematic, yes. Easiest and most fun, no. Eslin's rule is simpler and more dynamic. It's actually quite elegant. It scales nicely and is easy to use and understand.

OTOH, regaining hit die via action would require a chart or formula to say how much. It also requires the fighter to do nothing else that round, which is unfun and nonsensical. This rule doesn't really fit with the 5e simplicity, either.

[mephnick]

Yeah, fair enough.

Now we just need some better manoeuvres..

[Easy_Lee]

Yeah, fair enough.

Now we just need some better manoeuvres..

Probably best for another thread, but I tend to agree. The current list has some nice options, like precision attack a dice riposte, but there's more support for certain kinds of fighters than others.

[Eslin]

Agreed. This is how Tome of Battle classes worked (Adaptive Style) and people seem to want to emulate that with Battlemasters, so....

It's the easiest, most thematic solution isn't it?

But the battlemaster isn't anything like the ToB classes. And we don't want to encourage any association, the last thing we want is people thinking it's a replacement and reducing the chance of getting a proper tactical martial supplement.


You absolutely have to make sure that extra dice gained this way don't last past the end of the combat, or you'll have battlemasters deliberately seeking out weak enemies to build up their dice for the tough ones.

Is the bit where I said ' superiority dice that must be used before the end of your next turn' not clear?

[MadBear]

As a point of order, if you assume that a Battle Master gets two short rests per adventuring day, they have roughly the same number of opportunities per day to use their class resource as any other class. This is, undoubtedly, an intentional thing; every character gets between 18ish and 25ish limited resource points for their limited resource power. BM probably get somewhat fewer because the game knows you'll be using all those resources in combat, whereas virtually every caster will be expected to split their limited resources between in-combat and out-of-combat spells.

I think it's totally reasonable to take issue with BM or Fighters as a whole. It's clearly a design decision that gets under some people's skins. But this doesn't really do much to move the needle, as far as I'm concerned, and just ends up being a pretty substantial buff that does nothing to address the actual problems people have.

The problem is that not all limited resources are created equal. The BM maneuvers start out really good, but as others gain more powerful and varied spells, the comparable power of the BM decreases.

In fact it's the reason that a 3 level dip for my Paladin into BM fighter seems way better, then a fighter dipping 3 levels of Paladin. My paladin's abilities keep getting better and better. Even the Paladin's limited spell selection is varied enough for different uses.

[Eslin]

The problem is that not all limited resources are created equal. The BM maneuvers start out really good, but as others gain more powerful and varied spells, the comparable power of the BM decreases.

In fact it's the reason that a 3 level dip for my Paladin into BM fighter seems way better, then a fighter dipping 3 levels of Paladin. My paladin's abilities keep getting better and better. Even the Paladin's limited spell selection is varied enough for different uses.

Best comparison I've found is with the eldritch knight, since they're the same class. At level 3 the EK has 2 spell slots (plus cantrips) and the BM has 4 superiority dice. At level 20 the EK has 10 spell slots of progressively higher level and the BM has 6 superiority dice. The BM has a list of 16 maneuvers they can pick from, while including cantrips (but NOT including their ability to take some of their spells from the entire wizard list) the EK has 15 spells to pick from. At level 15 the BM has 9 maneuvers to pick from (16 minus 7 already taken), while the EK has 26 (37 minus the 11 already picked, but again NOT counting the entire wizard list they can choose a few of their spells from). BM starts ok and then goes absolutely nowhere, compare it to the eldritch knight which always has something to look forward to.

[Easy_Lee]

Best comparison I've found is with the eldritch knight, since they're the same class. At level 3 the EK has 2 spell slots (plus cantrips) and the BM has 4 superiority dice. At level 20 the EK has 10 spell slots of progressively higher level and the BM has 6 superiority dice. The BM has a list of 16 maneuvers they can pick from, while including cantrips (but NOT including their ability to take some of their spells from the entire wizard list) the EK has 15 spells to pick from. At level 15 the BM has 9 maneuvers to pick from (16 minus 7 already taken), while the EK has 26 (37 minus the 11 already picked, but again NOT counting the entire wizard list they can choose a few of their spells from). BM starts ok and then goes absolutely nowhere, compare it to the eldritch knight which always has something to look forward to.

How often do EKs regain spent spell slots?

[Eslin]

How often do EKs regain spent spell slots?

Daily, and a level 4 spell does more than a maneuver ever could. Effect and recharge weren't comparable so I didn't list them, variety and number of options were so I did.

[Easy_Lee]

Daily, and a level 4 spell does more than a maneuver ever could. Effect and recharge weren't comparable so I didn't list them, variety and number of options were so I did.

Well the comparison is difficult for a few reasons:

EK recovers spells on long rest, BM maneuvers recover on short rest
BM gets more maneuvers per short rest than the short rest casting full caster warlock, though the warlock also gets some daily high level slots
An EK can, at a maximum, perform one attack in the same round as casting a spell (two if he gets a reaction). In contrast, BM maneuvers are part of the attack, meaning the BM gets up to four additional attacks on top of the one he applies the maneuver to.
If memory serves, there's no restriction against using multiple maneuvers in one round. Spells have this restriction to a degree, with a few exceptions for bonus action and reaction spells (though bonus action spells don't allow a non-cantrip to be cast in the same turn)

So it's hard to compare casting with maneuvers. That said, I do think your houserule is a good idea, simply because martial abilities should be usable more often and recover faster than spells due to their inability to warp reality.

[Eslin]

Well the comparison is difficult for a few reasons:

EK recovers spells on long rest, BM maneuvers recover on short rest
BM gets more maneuvers per short rest than the short rest casting full caster warlock, though the warlock also gets some daily high level slots
An EK can, at a maximum, perform one attack in the same round as casting a spell (two if he gets a reaction). In contrast, BM maneuvers are part of the attack, meaning the BM gets up to four additional attacks on top of the one he applies the maneuver to.
If memory serves, there's no restriction against using multiple maneuvers in one round. Spells have this restriction to a degree, with a few exceptions for bonus action and reaction spells (though bonus action spells don't allow a non-cantrip to be cast in the same turn)

So it's hard to compare casting with maneuvers. That said, I do think your houserule is a good idea, simply because martial abilities should be usable more often and recover faster than spells due to their inability to warp reality.

Yes, I said it was difficult to compare them. Spells like fly and invisibility do stuff in situations maneuvers simply can't, they're not comparable. However the rate of gain is - one gets no new choices past level 3 and the available pool of choices continually shrinks, the other gets more and more as they level and the available pool increases.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes, I said it was difficult to compare them. Spells like fly and invisibility do stuff in situations maneuvers simply can't, they're not comparable. However the rate of gain is - one gets no new choices past level 3 and the available pool of choices continually shrinks, the other gets more and more as they level and the available pool increases.

The out of combat applications are tricky as well. If magic were a real thing, everybody in the real world would use it due to being able to fly, create stone walls from nothing, fabricate materials into a finished product, and so on.

We can at least conceive of ways to balance BMs in combat, though. Higher level maneuvers that cause additional effects, possibly mirroring some spells, would be a good start. That said, it's tricky to do these kinds of things without invalidating champions in the process.

[Eslin]

The out of combat applications are tricky as well. If magic were a real thing, everybody in the real world would use it due to being able to fly, create stone walls from nothing, fabricate materials into a finished product, and so on.

We can at least conceive of ways to balance BMs in combat, though. Higher level maneuvers that cause additional effects, possibly mirroring some spells, would be a good start. That said, it's tricky to do these kinds of things without invalidating champions in the process.

Champions are already invalid due to being crap. I've said it before and I'll say it again, champions should absolutely never be used as a point of comparison because you risk thinking that dragging a class down to the champion's level is an acceptable thing to do.

[Doug Lampert]

Yes, I said it was difficult to compare them. Spells like fly and invisibility do stuff in situations maneuvers simply can't, they're not comparable. However the rate of gain is - one gets no new choices past level 3 and the available pool of choices continually shrinks, the other gets more and more as they level and the available pool increases.

Yeh, if they are balanced at level 3 then they are what at level 20?

Say maneuvers at 20 are twice as good as at level 3 (better die and more choices). So the BM subclass is 4 times as good at 20 than at 3 (double the dice and double the value per die).

Meanwhile the caster is 5x as good even if we assume that level 4 slots have the exact same value as level 1 slots and that slots are the only thing the EK gets from levels.

Even at the most optimistic the BM just isn't keeping up in what it gives you. It's not hopeless, it wouldn't take much to substantially improve the balance of the subclass (higher level maneuvers or a half level round up in dice or Eslin's suggestion). But at present, if you assume balance at level 3 and reduce the EK to just getting 10 level 1 slots over 20 levels then the EK would STILL be getting more out of leveling than the BM, and that's just sad.

Now in fact, I don't think they're balanced at level 3, I'd say BM is probably straight out better at low levels. But he's also weaker at high levels, and strong now then weak later isn't balanced, it's unbalanced twice.

[Giant2005]

Yeh, if they are balanced at level 3 then they are what at level 20?

Say maneuvers at 20 are twice as good as at level 3 (better die and more choices). So the BM subclass is 4 times as good at 20 than at 3 (double the dice and double the value per die).

Meanwhile the caster is 5x as good even if we assume that level 4 slots have the exact same value as level 1 slots and that slots are the only thing the EK gets from levels.

Even at the most optimistic the BM just isn't keeping up in what it gives you. It's not hopeless, it wouldn't take much to substantially improve the balance of the subclass (higher level maneuvers or a half level round up in dice or Eslin's suggestion). But at present, if you assume balance at level 3 and reduce the EK to just getting 10 level 1 slots over 20 levels then the EK would STILL be getting more out of leveling than the BM, and that's just sad.

Now in fact, I don't think they're balanced at level 3, I'd say BM is probably straight out better at low levels. But he's also weaker at high levels, and strong now then weak later isn't balanced, it's unbalanced twice.

That comparison doesn't really work.
At level 3 the caster using a spell slot casts 1 spell and the Battlemaster uses 1 attack + 1 maneuver but at 20 that caster uses a slot to cast 1 spell and the Battlemaster uses 4 attacks and 1 maneuver. So the Battlemaster's action which includes his maneuver has indeed scaled comparatively.

[MadBear]

As I think about it, I think there's an easy way to add new, interesting maneuvers that'd make sense.


Manuevers: level's 1-7 (first set of choices)- Same as before

Level 8-13 (second set of maneuvers)- Takes up 1 attacks to use but a much better effect

Levels 14-18 (3rd set of maneuvers)- Takes up 2 attacks, but a far better effect

Levels 19-20 (4th set of maneuvers)- You pick one maneuver. It takes up all 3 attacks, but to a 20th level worth effect.



I essentially mirrored the point that the EK gets their spell upgrades (2nd-4th level spells).

You can always use a lower level maneuver the same as the rules currently allow, but now you can use more powerful maneuvers that eat into you potential damage. This makes it a trade-off the same way the EK makes a trade-off to use spells. This also means you can always lower maneuvers so that you can also make more attacks.

Now, to figure out potential maneuvers that would be worth taking/using attacks to make work.

[Myzz]

my 2 cp, though I have yet to play a Battle Master or Champion, though I've made a few for DM purposes.


Champion does not suck, its just boring. Eslin, I think your missing the fact that a level 15 Champion has triple the chance to crit as the other fighters... TRIPLE. Expanded crits were among the feats I took on my melees and ranged in 3.X

In regards to the OP, I think it would be balanced if the BM had to specify prior to making any attack, how many attacks he was sacrificing in order to pull off the maneuvers, AND had to perform them that round... Hitting then deciding to add something on just feels wrong and cheesy. If performing the maneuver is not the intent, then you dont get the bonus of having done it post attack. Even at level 1 you could sacrifice your 1st attack in round 1 to gain a bonus dice and then use action surge to attack... Or if your TWF'ing (and similar) perform it on your Bonus action...

I also like Person_Man's version, although I might add having them decay at a rate of 1/some allotted amount of time... I;ll have to think more on that though... (but this version is way more complex).

The compromise between the 2 might be to slow normal progression of dice gain, so that he gains dice at half the normal rate (since he can now create dice whenever he needs to.)

And in regards to the EK. They get a total of 13 spells over 20 levels +3 Cantrips (max). Of those 13 spells only 4 can be any spell from the wizards spell list the others have to be Evocation or Abjuration... And by RAW they could only get 3, 4th level spells. AND they will only ever be casting 11 spells per day at level 20.

Level Evok Abjur Number of Choices by school by spell level
1 5 4 9 + 1 (any)
2 6 1 7 + 1 (any)
3 4 7 11 +1 (any)
4 4 2 6 + 1 (any)
total 19 14 33 + 4 (any)

Theoretically he could have all the level 3 spells, but would not know any level 4 and would have converted many of the lower level spells into 3rd and given up access to 2 of his any spells.

At level 20 sure an EK has 13 spells to have chosen from, while the BM has 9 to have chosen from. But at level 10, the EK only had 7 to choose from, while the BM had 7 as well. If we break the choices down and disregard the 4 any spells the EK can get over his career...

@20 EK 13 known spells from 33 choices with 11 uses, BM 9 known Maneuvers from 16 choices with 6 uses.
@10 EK 7 known spells from 16 choices with 7 uses, BM 7 known Maneuvers from 16 choices with 5 uses.
@5 EK 4 known spells from 9 choices with 3 uses, BM 3 known Maneuvers from 16 choices with 4 uses.

AND realistically the maneuver choices are going to be further limited by fighting style and player preference. Only 12 of the 16 work at ranged for instance, while all 16 work in melee.

My point being that EK's dont get quite the HUGE disparity in choice that you would have us to believe since, most campaigns are not played at level 20. And in the middle (level 10) they seem to have about the same choices... (although the EK does get those 2 from any school). Also note that level 10 is where the EK does get his 3rd and final Cantrip, prior to which he probably had prestidigitation or mending and 1 ranged damage cantrip...

In regards to BM vs EK, it would seem that prior to level 5 BM are just fine with regards to the number of uses they have and with their choice selection. 5 to 10 the BM begins to fade with regards to maneuver usage, although choice is at least equal to that of an EK when not superior to. After level 10, the BM's maneuver usage is paltry compared to EK spell usage. So even if an EK just had a spell that performed a maneuver he would be able to use it more often... That kind of seems wrong. BUT he does have to give up most of his attacks in a round to do that...

I can see how the previous poster said the BM should acquire this ability at level 7... I think level 10 might be a better level to acquire the ability and keep it inline with EK usage. BM usage would be behind EK's, but with their ability to use 1 maneuver per attack (PHB 73 under maneuvers) for each of their attacks including AoO, and Reactions... Even at level 5 thats potentially 4 maneuvers per round, and I dont think they need that "power" that early. Level 10 seems to be where they start to lag behind and could use the boost, but the boost is quite considerable, I could see even pushing back acquisition until 12...

[Eslin]

{scrubbed}

[Garimeth]

I personally like Eslin's rule, and am definitely going to use it for games I DM.

Second, and keeping in mind I've disagreed with Eslin on other things on the boards, He is right: Chapmion sucks. It sucks so bad that every person in my group agrees it sucks. It sucks so much in fact that when I DM, I am going to take Champion's subclass features and make them part of BM - in addition to Eslin's house rule. For Champion to work as a subclass it needs bigger numerical increases like being able to wield over sized weapons (monkey grip) bigger crit increases or something. As it stands its only purpose is to give players an option to play that requires little work or decision making. "I hit that." Nothing wrong with that playstyle, that's what some people want, but that doesn't make it numerically balanced.

[Myzz]

Haha oh wow. Ok, first up, your 3.x feat choices were very suboptimal - why waste the very limited amount of feats you have on that rather than just having magic items do the work for you? Improved critical wasn't very good, but even if it was there'd be no reason to get it since you can obtain the same thing through other means.

Second up: wow, on 2 more rolls out of 20 I can have double the dice! Flat increases like sharpshooter won't benefit, but that means that I can, one more roll in ten than usual, get an extra d6-d12 damage! That's totally worth fifteen levels.

I'm really not missing it. I wish I had missed something, when I first saw their features I assumed my PHB was missing a page, but no, they were serious - the crappy passive features are the only thing they get.

Obviously it works better with more attacks you get to "proc" the crit, and how exactly are you getting more d20 rolls by choosing a different Fighter Archetype? More D20's implies more attacks. The only one I can think off the top of my head is reaction rolls using Maneuvers, considering you have the same number of attacks, and still have a bonus action to attack with (which you only get one). So they should have the same number of attacks and the same number of d20 rolls. you get more damage rolls = number of superiority dice of which you have 5 tops per short rest before level 15. Those dice dont add flat adders either... And a crit allows you to roll double ALL dice. So the more dice you can add to roll the better. Static adders are obviously preferable as they raise min dmg and max dmg.

TBH I've only paired Champion with an Assassin dip, to go "dual hand xbow" use status inflicting poisons and now you have a BM that has all the 'terrible' passive abilities of the Champion, who when he crits using his dmg poisons after surprise round brings the hurt.

[TrollCapAmerica]

I think there may be a build or two with half-orc great weapon users that could get some mileage of the Champions capabilities

Man that was a stretch that would make Reed Richards Plasticman and Luffy jealous

[Easy_Lee]

This thread inspired me to make another thread in defense of the champion. I really don't think it's as bad an archetype as many say, particularly when rests are in short supply. For instance, a level 15 champion has nearly a 50% chance to crit once in four attacks, as opposed to the standard 18%. That's pretty big, especially if you play a half orc. They also add half proficiency to initiative, assuming initiative falls under the general heading of "Dex Check."

[mephnick]

Champion is so boring I don't want to introduce it as the simple class for new players.

Because I think a new player using Champion would never want to play D&D again.

I almost blue-texted this but then I realized I was serious.

[Easy_Lee]

Champion is so boring I don't want to introduce it as the simple class for new players.

Because I think a new player using Champion would never want to play D&D again.

I almost blue-texted this but then I realized I was serious.

Most of my players are noobs and consistently forget about their more complex class features and feat choices. For some of them, a basic champion, which encourages creativity and role playing while not making them second guess spell usage, would probably have been a better choice.

I realize it's not for everyone. That said, I know the game's mechanics and finer details better than many, and I'm quite fond of the champion. It's an archetype that makes the most of simple but deep mechanics.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Champion is so boring I don't want to introduce it as the simple class for new players.

Because I think a new player using Champion would never want to play D&D again.

I almost blue-texted this but then I realized I was serious.

I'm facing a related dilemma. I'm crashing at a friends until the end of the month and I'm running my first 5th ed game for my bro his wife and their 10 year old daughter (How the heckler did my old stoner buddies get decade old kids?Oh nm that)

The girl took the Maul wielding Dragonborn from the big list of premades I wrote up and I'm left wondering what she will do come 3rd level. Will she go with Champion for its simplicity or will she be bored? Can the kid handle BM or EK if she tries them instead?

[CrusaderJoe]

I'm facing a related dilemma. I'm crashing at a friends until the end of the month and I'm running my first 5th ed game for my bro his wife and their 10 year old daughter (How the heckler did my old stoner buddies get decade old kids?Oh nm that)

The girl took the Maul wielding Dragonborn from the big list of premades I wrote up and I'm left wondering what she will do come 3rd level. Will she go with Champion for its simplicity or will she be bored? Can the kid handle BM or EK if she tries them instead?

Does she play video games? I've found that young kids who play videogames look at the Champion the same way as experience players... Boring and useless. Having a simple option is really only for people who have no experience in gaming, but those that do really don't need the simple option. I've seen first time kid players at local game days pick up wizards/clerics/druids and jump right in.

This idea that we need a simple uninteresting fighter is bull crap.

[Vogonjeltz]

Does she play video games? I've found that young kids who play videogames look at the Champion the same way as experience players... Boring and useless. Having a simple option is really only for people who have no experience in gaming, but those that do really don't need the simple option. I've seen first time kid players at local game days pick up wizards/clerics/druids and jump right in.

This idea that we need a simple uninteresting fighter is bull crap.

Experienced players are creative enough to exploit the advantages the Champion has.

[CrusaderJoe]

Experienced players are creative enough to exploit the advantages the Champion has.

Hahahaha

The only real advantage the champion has is that it crits more. Critical hits has nothing to do with exploiting anything. Critical hits are random "lucky" rolls of a die. About the only exploit for this is taking twf and that is better on a rogue.

Everything else is either forgettable (remarkable athlete is a joke) or too far along the class to be used much (regeneration).

The only way to exploit a champion fighter over a battle master or EK is to cheat by rolling a loaded d20.

[Easy_Lee]

Experienced players are creative enough to exploit the advantages the Champion has.

And many players, like me, have a lot more fun finding ways to win with a few deep, versatile mechanics (like improved crit and remarkable athlete) than using a dozen narrower ones for the same result.

[Giant2005]

And many players, like me, have a lot more fun finding ways to win with a few deep, versatile mechanics (like improved crit and remarkable athlete) than using a dozen narrower ones for the same result.

And others just prefer consistent strength rather than just being strong for 4 or less attacks per rest.

[Logical DM]

And many players, like me, have a lot more fun finding ways to win with a few deep, versatile mechanics (like improved crit and remarkable athlete) than using a dozen narrower ones for the same result.

But those aren't deep or versatile. One is a small, random increase to damage and the other is between +1 and +3 on the physical skills - if you were talking about say the thief rogue who although he only has passive abilities has a bunch strong and versatile abilities I'd get what you're saying, but you're claiming that a few minor passive abilities are somehow deep and versatile despite mostly just adding a small amount to what you can already do, which is the direct opposite of depth and versatility.

[Easy_Lee]

But those aren't deep or versatile. One is a small, random increase to damage and the other is between +1 and +3 on the physical skills - if you were talking about say the thief rogue who although he only has passive abilities has a bunch strong and versatile abilities I'd get what you're saying, but you're claiming that a few minor passive abilities are somehow deep and versatile despite mostly just adding a small amount to what you can already do, which is the direct opposite of depth and versatility.

You really need to read my thread "In Defense of the Champion" before calling their increased crit chance "small and random" or saying remarkable athlete lacks versatility. For instance, a normal character attacking with advantage has a 9.75% chance to crit per attack. For a champion, the odds jump to 19% at 3 and 27.75% at 15. You don't think that's huge? You don't think that shows depth, giving the champion incentive to find sources of advantage and additional damage die (such as from a flaming weapon) wherever he can get them?

As far as remarkable athlete, it applies to all dexterity, strength, and con checks. That includes initiative. That also includes any check which can be construed as a check for one of those stats, one common example of which would be a drinking contest (opposed con check). It also means the fighter can skimp on dexterity skills, such as acrobatics, stealth, and slight of hand, knowing that he'll get half proficiency to those anyway. That means he can branch into other skills he might not normally take, meaning versatility.

Like I said in my thread, the champion only appears to lack depth. Once you start looking into the actual math behind his attacks, the champion really starts to excel.

[Logical DM]

You really need to read my thread "In Defense of the Champion" before calling their increased crit chance "small and random" or saying remarkable athlete lacks versatility. For instance, a normal character attacking with advantage has a 9.75% chance to crit per attack. For a champion, the odds jump to 19% at 3 and 27.75% at 15. You don't think that's huge? You don't think that shows depth, giving the champion incentive to find sources of advantage and additional damage die (such as from a flaming weapon) wherever he can get them?
I don't think that's huge, no. I understand the maths, the real crit increase is larger than 10% also because not all attacks are hitting, while all crits will be because they're on the upper end. And no, that's not depth. That's a minor, passive increase to their damage that they have incentive to try to boost in specific, metagamey ways - I don't call many things metagaming because I usually hate the term, but you'll have a character making choices based on out of game maths he cannot possibly know about. A character might take a hand crossbow because he can train to attack faster with one, but taking specific abilities because crits double damage dice? And that's all it is, it's changing your choices slightly because of a passive ability, it doesn't add any depth to how they play.


As far as remarkable athlete, it applies to all dexterity, strength, and con checks. That includes initiative. That also includes any check which can be construed as a check for one of those stats, one common example of which would be a drinking contest (opposed con check). It also means the fighter can skimp on dexterity skills, such as acrobatics, stealth, and slight of hand, knowing that he'll get half proficiency to those anyway. That means he can branch into other skills he might not normally take, meaning versatility.

Like I said in my thread, the champion only appears to lack depth. Once you start looking into the actual math behind his attacks, the champion really starts to excel.
They start to excel meaning they get a little better at only their already narrow capabilities, yes? They have absolutely no tactical depth and they don't excel at anything, if all you want is a character that can take and deal damage there are much better solutions than being a champion

[Easy_Lee]

I don't think that's huge, no. I understand the maths, the real crit increase is larger than 10% also because not all attacks are hitting, while all crits will be because they're on the upper end. And no, that's not depth. That's a minor, passive increase to their damage that they have incentive to try to boost in specific, metagamey ways - I don't call many things metagaming because I usually hate the term, but you'll have a character making choices based on out of game maths he cannot possibly know about. A character might take a hand crossbow because he can train to attack faster with one, but taking specific abilities because crits double damage dice? And that's all it is, it's changing your choices slightly because of a passive ability, it doesn't add any depth to how they play.


They start to excel meaning they get a little better at only their already narrow capabilities, yes? They have absolutely no tactical depth and they don't excel at anything, if all you want is a character that can take and deal damage there are much better solutions than being a champion

You know, for a game named "Logical DM", you have an extremely narrow-minded approach to this game. You dismiss what advantages the champion can reap as "metagaming" and then insult the other benefits he gets which other fighters don't. BM can do something cool six times per short rest, but not as cool as what warlocks can do. Eldritch knight can cast spells, but not as many nor as often as a valor bard (who can beat the EK's DPR, too, if the EK doesn't multiclass). A champion, on the other hand, can do what he does all day every day, no matter how sadistic the DM is about resting. And due to the advantage numbers, a champion who's actually RPing, playing well, and finding those sources of advantage is quickly going to pull ahead of everyone in the damage department.

Where you see a lack of options, I see a few very good ones that can be applied in a wide variety of situations with just a little creativity. If you choose not to see it that way, that's your choice, but it doesn't make you "right" by any definition of the word.

[pwykersotz]

I'm late to the party, but I like this rule very much. And I do think it's important to keep the dice to the end of the next turn (or at least to the beginning of the next turn) to allow maneuvers like Parry to be used.

Frankly, having played both a Battle Master and an Elements Monk, I think there needs to be a recharge method in place for both classes well before the capstone. The monk fixes I've seen have been FAR too generous from what I remember. I think solutions like this are elegant and just the right power level.

Bravo, Eslin. :smallsmile:

[silveralen]

A player mentioned this to me today, and it seems that this fixes the lack of superiority dice pretty much perfectly - would the ability to sacrifice attacks (only get 2 out of your 3 attacks as a level 11 fighter, for instance) in order to gain a superiority die for every attack sacrificed that must be used before the end of your next turn be balanced?

Yeah, it would be imo. It might have a handful of corner cases (commander strike is the only one that comes to mind) but overall I think it's a fine change that won't change much (normal attacks will be best most of the time, and often the basic manuever's will be better as well).

[MadBear]

I'm sure Eslin would be very happy to know that, but as you can see above he was banned for being sarcastic. I'm sure we'll see him around in one way or another.

Nah, I'm sure he's gone for good. Even if he comes back, there's no way that anyone would know. It's too bad, I really liked his BM fix.

[mephnick]

I've also seen much more poisonous posts not result in any punishment, so I'd be sad if he got banned for that.

Oh well, RIP in peace Eslin, wherever you are.

[Easy_Lee]

This thread gonna get locked if we keep talkin about Eslin.

Back on the BM, I still think this rule is a nice addition. Have a somewhat related question. Would the playground say that BMs are a bit like the sorcerers of fighters? They have ways of enhancing their basic options into better versions.

I ask because it might be cool to Homebrew a variant, replacing certain features (like the size up an enemy thing) with some sorcerer-inspired features. Things like applying Superiority dice to more than just attacks.

[pwykersotz]

This thread gonna get locked if we keep talkin about Eslin.

Back on the BM, I still think this rule is a nice addition. Have a somewhat related question. Would the playground say that BMs are a bit like the sorcerers of fighters? They have ways of enhancing their basic options into better versions.

I ask because it might be cool to Homebrew a variant, replacing certain features (like the size up an enemy thing) with some sorcerer-inspired features. Things like applying Superiority dice to more than just attacks.

That does sound cool. At that point though, you might as well rename them Action Points. :smalltongue:

Unless you had options other than adding Superiority Dice to saves and ability checks in mind?

[CrusaderJoe]

That does sound cool. At that point though, you might as well rename them Action Points. :smalltongue:

Unless you had options other than adding Superiority Dice to saves and ability checks in mind?

I think the DMG does have action points or whatever. Maybe hero points? Some bull crap tack on to make people feel more like a hero. The devs still think moar numbahs equal moar awesome.

[Easy_Lee]

That does sound cool. At that point though, you might as well rename them Action Points. :smalltongue:

Unless you had options other than adding Superiority Dice to saves and ability checks in mind?

I did. I was thinking it could be fun to, say, use a Superiority die to enter a battle stance. Maybe there's a feature where the BM can enter a special stance for three rounds that gives them advantage on non-physical saving throws, or disadvantages attackers, or gives their attacks advantage. Nothing too busted, just some extra options so they get new features as they level.

[Easy_Lee]

We're heading awfully close to trying to recreate tome of battle or 4e fighters here =P

You know what's funny? I never played 4e (stuck with 3.5 until recently). I'm just trying to come up with fighter-esque things that would make BMs a bit more fun in the long run.

Right now, BM seems to me like a very good rogue dip for the extra attack and maneuvers. A BM 11 / rogue 9 could be really good. But a pure BM does not seem quite as good as a dedicated champion or Eldritch Knight, who have more to look forward to. I don't like the idea that an archetype should be encouraged to multiclass because the later levels don't have much going on.

It's all theoretical, of course. I don't currently have a BM player, so it's not likely to come up for me.

[CrusaderJoe]

You know what's funny? I never played 4e (stuck with 3.5 until recently). I'm just trying to come up with fighter-esque things that would make BMs a bit more fun in the long run.



.... Seriously go look into the 4e fighter. Even just using at-will made it much more interesting and useful (simple too) than what it going on now.

They got the fighter right in 4e (essentials not so much).

They were a top tier class and yet not broken unless you did something cheesy.