Core Combat Rules Rewrite/Fix

[ThermalSlapShot]

So a side project of mine is to take the current combat rules, skills, and Magic rules and relocating a few things and then adding more rules specifically for martials.

This won't be the homebrew thread, what I want from this thread is to figure out whats the difference between commoners, casters, and martials. This means, what rules should be kept for general use (basic combat rules) and what should be given to the martials.

+++
Example.

In basic combat rules you can "shove". With shoving you can push or trip an enemy. I would change it to "Athletics versus Athletics or Acrobatics, you have disadvantage on this contest. If you gain a Feat that improves your ability to shove you don't gain disadvantage on that type of shove (Charger, Shield Master)."

A rule for martials (and partial martials) will say " you don't have disadvantage on shove contests".

The rule for magic would be "if you cast a spell that shoves, you don't have disadvantage on the contests".

+++

Why the change up? Well this shows that anyone can attempt to shove a creature, however not everyone is proficient in the same way. Without the training, well, you suck.

Mostly this change doesn't do a whole lot. However what it does do is show a clear distinction between commoners, martials, and casters.

90% of the time this rule change won't be noticed in actual game play. Wizards don't typically shove without a spell and martials don't typically shove with Spells (but would have no disadvantage if they learned a spell that shoves).

These rule changes would be mostly subtle, hopefully.

So what do you think?


Edited

Also martial maneuvers will have prerequisites. The prerequisites will be Martial and Partial Martial.

Martial: Levels in a PC class that doesn't grant spell slots. Example: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue.

Partial Martial: Levels in a PC class that grants no more than partial spell slots and you have extra attack or sneak attack. Examples: Eldritch Knight, Paladin, Ranger, Arcane Trickster, and Valor Bard is an exception.

Yes with this a Fighter or Rogue may lose their martial status and become a partial martial. Their focus on magic stunts their advancement in the martial abilities.

All maneuvers will have two prerequisite but only the highest clearance will be stated.

Partial Martial: Lowest rank, anyone that is a PM or M can use these rules.

Martials: Highest rank, anyone that is a M can use these rules.

+Edited Again

This all will allow an expansion on what martials can do but not effect what casters or commoners can do. It gets martial PCs out of the limbo.

[Vogonjeltz]

what I want from this thread is to figure out whats the difference between commoners, casters, and martials.

It depends on the particular class/subclass combo we're talking about.

But generally speaking the difference between Player characters (i.e. casters and martials) and NPCs (commoners) is stats and special abilities. So, everything.

The difference between spellcasters and martials (non-spellcasters?) is the presence of limited use and on-demand abilities. Typically a spellcaster has many limited use abilities, and few on-demand abilities, whereas the martial typically has few limited use but many on-demand abilities.

Regarding your suggestion vis the shove contest....spellcasters are already typically inferior by virtue of, typically, having access to fewer attacks.

Extreme example: A Fighter at 20 has 4 attacks, a Wizard has 1. That's 4 opportunities to force the Wizard to go prone. Even if they're identical in all other ways, the fighter is essentially 4 times as likely to succeed here. Forcing disadvantage on the wizard would just be making this lopsided comparison even more comical one-sided.

I think you cover the problem with rules based on the existence of spell slots quite well, it just doesn't make any sense for someone to have this training and lose it when they become more powerful.

[ThermalSlapShot]

It depends on the particular class/subclass combo we're talking about.

But generally speaking the difference between Player characters (i.e. casters and martials) and NPCs (commoners) is stats and special abilities. So, everything.

The difference between spellcasters and martials (non-spellcasters?) is the presence of limited use and on-demand abilities. Typically a spellcaster has many limited use abilities, and few on-demand abilities, whereas the martial typically has few limited use but many on-demand abilities.

Regarding your suggestion vis the shove contest....spellcasters are already typically inferior by virtue of, typically, having access to fewer attacks.

Extreme example: A Fighter at 20 has 4 attacks, a Wizard has 1. That's 4 opportunities to force the Wizard to go prone. Even if they're identical in all other ways, the fighter is essentially 4 times as likely to succeed here. Forcing disadvantage on the wizard would just be making this lopsided comparison even more comical one-sided.

I think you cover the problem with rules based on the existence of spell slots quite well, it just doesn't make any sense for someone to have this training and lose it when they become more powerful.

The things in the base rules that I wanted to keep is the explanation of what the attack action is, movement, and other basic stuff. Some maneuvers would be needed because straight up not giving commoners the ability to shove/grapple is weird.

The defender doesn't get disadvantage, the attacker does. If you know how to defend yourself (everyone kinda does, which is why the base AC is 10 and not 0) then you can work normally when being tripped or pushed.

Like... Basically it means that when attacking commoners and casters are not proficient with basic maneuvers and can not even use the better martial options.

I'm keeping the disadvantage and not having them loose proficiency because then that gets weird with a person trained in athletics. Sure the wizard may be trained in personal Athletics but not with Athletics related to combat. Like a NBA player may be athletic but could lose to a semipro or college wrestler when it comes to grappling.

The problem is that, currently, so many people see the grouping as martial+commoner and casters. Instead of Commoners, Martials, and Casters.

Or worse, they see Martials = Commoners.

Screw that.

That is what causes people to think that a Fighter having the chance to trip a wizard 4 times is an appropriate level of play when the wizard has all their options in hand.

That isn't a wizard, it is a CR 20 Dragon/whatever wizard who probably isn't within melee range of the Fighter (am I the only one that picks up mobile on my high level mages?). I'm not sure if the Fighter can trip the wizard at that point (or that it matters).

Martials are not commoners and we need to change the basic rules to reflect this.

Oh and casters may have limited use abilities, but the game is built around the casters having limited use abilities... So they don't really have limited use abilities but just the right amount (typically) of abilities. Plus cantrips are pretty awesome along with other class features.

[Naanomi]

Questions you will need to answer:
-how does multiclassing work? My fighter suddenly gets worse at grappling after his demon pact?
-where do totem barbarians/monks fit on the continuum? Rangers and Paladins I assume are 'semi-martials'
-does spell casting from feats or race ruin a 'martial' status?
-what about corner cases... War clerics, blade-locks, mountain-dwarf abjurers, valor bards, moon Druids in melee-oriented elemental forms, etc?
-how will polymorph work? If I polymorph into a 'martial' form (troll, giant, whatever) will I count as a martial?
-will race be a factor? Goliaths get athletics racially, for example, and the already in optimal Goliath caster will suffer from this; future races might also throw a wrench in the distinction

[Mara]

Dislike.

1000000% No.

Needing feats and perfect builds to barely do something that may or may not be aweful depending on the situation was the folly of 3.5.

You want to know the difference between commoners, casters, and martials? Stats, number of attacks, class features. We have three real martials in this game. Barbarians, monks and Fighters. Fighters get 4-8 attacks in a round. Barbarians get 2-3 and can rage buff for advantage and bonus damage. Monks can get up to 4. Casters have 1 attack. Half casters get two and maybe some damage bonuses.

[weaseldust]

Wouldn't it be simpler to restrict Athletics to jumping, climbing, etc. and introduce a new skill called "Shoving", or whatever, which only certain classes get proficiency in? (Or half casters get proficiency, non-casters get expertise.) Just because Athletics is called "Athletics" doesn't mean it has to be useful wherever being athletic is - no name is perfect, they're just guides, so it's up to you what all the skills do.

[Ralanr]

The problem is that, currently, so many people see the grouping as martial+commoner and casters. Instead of Commoners, Martials, and Casters.

Or worse, they see Martials = Commoners.



Who? Beyond yourself, who says this? Where on this forum is this pointed out? Where on the D&D forums? Where on EN World? Where are people saying this?

Only you have said stuff like this, mostly with complaints that fighters are mundane.

Interesting fact: Commoners aren't proficient in athletics. They aren't proficient in any skills and have a straight 10 across the board. You know what separates a martial from a commoner? Proficiency.

Now, could a wizard take athletics? Yeah. Could they pump their strength to be great at it? Sure. How many wizards do we see with 20 str?

Rogue dip for expertise? Sure. Maybe the rogue shouldn't give expertise at such a low level? If a wizard did dip into rogue for one level they'd also lose their second slot for level 7 spells, and their signature spell ability which turns two level 3 spells into basically cantrips for the sake of functionality.

Also, could. Could is the thing. They have the option, the possibility, but they have to sacrifice stuff to gain this option.

Could there be better balance? Sure. But stay the **** away from feat chains please. I hated needed to use feat X to gain feat Y. It limited the amount of feats you wanted to get and 5e doesn't give options for many feats.

That's because feats are an optional mechanic in 5e. Featless games apparently work very well!

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, this is really unnecessary. More than that, it takes away fun.

I have a Druid player who loves to do crazy things, like suplexing a satyr. Under your system, he'd have almost no chance of doing it successfully, and that's just less fun.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Questions you will need to answer:
-how does multiclassing work? My fighter suddenly gets worse at grappling after his demon pact?
-where do totem barbarians/monks fit on the continuum? Rangers and Paladins I assume are 'semi-martials'
-does spell casting from feats or race ruin a 'martial' status?
-what about corner cases... War clerics, blade-locks, mountain-dwarf abjurers, valor bards, moon Druids in melee-oriented elemental forms, etc?
-how will polymorph work? If I polymorph into a 'martial' form (troll, giant, whatever) will I count as a martial?
-will race be a factor? Goliaths get athletics racially, for example, and the already in optimal Goliath caster will suffer from this; future races might also throw a wrench in the distinction

-Once you start focusing on spells you become a partial martial. You don't use the base rules for commoners but the martial rules. However some Maneuver options will be forever blocked. Just like if you are a caster and you MC too much, you lose Spells and features. You are spreading yourself too thin or you can't concentrate enough of your time to keep up your pure martial training. You may lose out on martial stuff but you are gaining Spells from the caster side.

-Everything is based on Spell Slots (or will be if I didn't update it yet), not Spell Casting :). Barbarians and Monks don't get spell slots. They are both Martials though Monks (elemental and Shadow) may get bumped down to Partial Martial.

-If you are a caster you can use the base rules, maybe some of the six base martial rules, but you will never have access to the martial maneuvers. So while you may use the PHB shove but you can't use the improved shove. My signature has some of the oens listed as able to use base martial rules but not the martial maneuvers.

-This is for PC classes only. Monsters don't fall I to this unless a DM wants them to. This will be purely for players. If you polymorph into a troll or wildshape you keep whatever feature you had before that you are allowed to keep. If you MC into a class with full spell progression you become a Partial Martial at best. If someone polymoprhed you and you get to keep your features then you can still use your martial status to do things.

-Race has no effect on this unless for whatever reason they ever give out racial spell slots (as opposed to at-will or cast 1/ short or long rest type stuff). A Genasi Fighter is still a pure martial even though they can cast create water. They don't have spell slots. Though weapon feats are discouraged (they aren't needed for the most part) you could pick up Magic Initiative. I will eventually put a note that this specific Feat doesn't change your status.




Dislike.

1000000% No.

Needing feats and perfect builds to barely do something that may or may not be aweful depending on the situation was the folly of 3.5.

You want to know the difference between commoners, casters, and martials? Stats, number of attacks, class features. We have three real martials in this game. Barbarians, monks and Fighters. Fighters get 4-8 attacks in a round. Barbarians get 2-3 and can rage buff for advantage and bonus damage. Monks can get up to 4. Casters have 1 attack. Half casters get two and maybe some damage bonuses.

You don't need feats for this. If you happen to take feats you get better but feats are not something you need to take. Actually, allowing feats is discourage as most of the basic martial rules and maneuvers makes some feats obsolete.

Also, your mentality of *move and do damage* is exactly what I'm working against. Battle should flow better and martials should have options outside of *move and hit*. As it is now, martials can't do anything else effectively, and that includes defending when they have Polearm + Sentinel (1 reaction per round kills defending).

Also, I'm sorry but casters may get 1 weapon attack but they get a crap ton of other things and can start to summon/polymorph things in order to gain more attacks. A Necromancer laughs at the fighter's 4 attacks/round.

Also the wizard gets multiattack when they change (or change someone else) into a dragon... So there's that (frightful presence, bite, claw claw).




Wouldn't it be simpler to restrict Athletics to jumping, climbing, etc. and introduce a new skill called "Shoving", or whatever, which only certain classes get proficiency in? (Or half casters get proficiency, non-casters get expertise.) Just because Athletics is called "Athletics" doesn't mean it has to be useful wherever being athletic is - no name is perfect, they're just guides, so it's up to you what all the skills do.

Perhaps.

However to keep things streamlined it is quite easy to say "non-martial/non-partial martial characters have disadvantage on XYZ".

They can still do all the other athletic things just for, but when they get in a real fight they soon find out there is a difference from being athletic and being an athletic warrior.

Edit

Seriously, there is no Feat chains mentioned by me. Moat feats get obaorbed into the basic martial system (which partial martial get access to).

Basic Martial Rules


Chapter Y: Martial Combat Rules

If you are a Martial or Partial Martial and have proficiency in the weapon you are using and a high enough ability score you may use any of the following six basic rules during combat.

These six basic rules may also be used by Valor Bards, Tempest Clerics, War Clerics, and Blade Pact Warlocks if they meet the prerequisites.

Combat Assistance
Int, Wis, or Cha 13+

As an action choose a target within range of your weapon attack, you may give up all of your weapon attacks you can make and instead allow a number of attacks before the start of your next turn, made against the same target, to benefit from advantage. You are going through the motions of attacking and may even lash out or fire upon the target, but your real goal is to get them in position for your ally’s attack.

Defender
Str or Dex 13+

As an action, you may give up your weapon attacks for your turn in order to be able to make any number of OA until the start of your next turn. Creatures provoke OA when they attack creatures adjacent to you, move into your melee weapon reach, or cast a spell (this OA happens before the spell is finished).

Special: If you have a Str or Dex of 17+ you may use your action to make one weapon attack but give your extra attack to use Defender. You have the Extra Attack class feature to use this. If you gain more than one extra attack (Fighter 11) you only have to give up one of them to use this.

Defensive Fighting
Int or Wis 13+

The first time you make a weapon attack or maneuver on your turn you may decide to fight defensively. Until the start of your next turn...

You have disadvantage on attack rolls and maneuver checks (including the triggering attack/maneuver)
You have advantage on saving throws
Enemies have advantage on saving throws against your effects
Enemies have disadvantage on attack rolls and maneuver checks against you
While using Defensive Fighting you can never benefit from any source of advantage in order to off set the disadvantage from this feature. A Barbarian using Defensive Fighting and Reckless attack would still have disadvantage on attack rolls and maneuver checks.


Secondary Attack
Str or Dex 13+

Whenever you take an action to make a weapon attack you may follow up that weapon attack with a bonus action weapon attack using the same weapon or another weapon. This weapon attack deals no higher than 1d6 damage and does not add your ability modifier.

Special If you have a Int or Wis score of 13 or higher you may give up this attack (and its bonus action) for Combat Assistant or Defender.

Power Attack
Str 13+

Whenever you attempt a Strength based weapon attack, subtract a number from your proficiency bonus. Add triple that amount to the damage roll. If you have multiple attacks you may power attack with any number of your attacks, choosing as you make the attack if you will use Power Attack. You can not use Power Attack to bring your Proficiency Bonus below 1.

Weapon Finesse
Dex 13+

Give the following weapons the *finesse* feature (dex to attack and damage): One handed weapons, versatile weapons used in one hand, and two handed weapons (but if the 2 handed weapon damage die is higher than a d8, then it becomes a d8).

(May add more subclasses to the list of "partial martials", maneuvers will have prerequisites of being " Martial" or "Partial Martial". I don't have the prerequisites up yet though. Martials will be able to take a Maneuver further than what a partial could. A commoner or caster will never be able to touch these though.)

[JNAProductions]

Still sounds like less fun, and more fun is always better. If you're a DM, have you talked to players about this and gotten their feelings on it?

[ThermalSlapShot]

Still sounds like less fun, and more fun is always better. If you're a DM, have you talked to players about this and gotten their feelings on it?

Yup, they helped get the original idea (fixing base combat homebrew) in my head when they complained about how much they felt like commoners.

If you are a caster you get your things and martials get theirs. Just because you are a caster doesn't mean you should be able to get *ALL the things*. There needs to be some respect for the martial side of things. Can the wizard shove? Sure but no were near as well as someone who has been trained to shove.

[Ralanr]

Yup, they helped get the original idea (fixing base combat homebrew) in my head when they complained about how much they felt like commoners.

If you are a caster you get your things and martials get theirs. Just because you are a caster doesn't mean you should be able to get *ALL the things*. There needs to be some respect for the martial side of things. Can the wizard shove? Sure but no were near as well as someone who has been trained to shove.

Fair enough. Your table, your rules.

[ThermalSlapShot]

One of the reason Fighters suck is cause they bring nothing new to the table or gain no access to anything new. Every single thing the Fighter does is something everyone does, just either more often or try again.

Horrible game design.

With access to martial maneuvers, things that only other pure martials can do effectively, you now have a Champion that can pick to be a defender or leader and not be stuck ad a Striker. And they don't even give up their Striker abilities (much like all the partial caster and caster classes).

Need to kill something with a sword? Champion can do that, need to throw a creature *through* a wall? Well with higher level *martial only (no partial martial, commoner, or caster)* Maneuver the Champion can start throwing dragons through walls (working on a throwing Feat that enhances the throw/trip Maneuver).

Edit

My idea of a pure martial Feat.

Colossian Jumper
Str 17+, Pure Martial

Whenever you jump from a target of "Climb onto a bigger creature" and attack a creature you have advantage on the attack roll. If you decide to, you may land on another creature and perform the "climb onto a bigger creature" Maneuver with advantage.

Additionally anytime you jump from the target of your "Climb onto a bigger creature" you count as having a running jump.

As a reaction, when the target of your "Climb into bigger creature" Maneuver is brought to 0hp you may make a jump which may include a weapon attack or "Climb onto a bigger creature" maneuver check at the end of the jump.

[Sigreid]

One of the reason Fighters suck is cause they bring nothing new to the table or gain no access to anything new. Every single thing the Fighter does is something everyone does, just either more often or try again.

Horrible game design.

With access to martial maneuvers, things that only other pure martials can do effectively, you now have a Champion that can pick to be a defender or leader and not be stuck ad a Striker. And they don't even give up their Striker abilities (much like all the partial caster and caster classes).

Need to kill something with a sword? Champion can do that, need to throw a creature *through* a wall? Well with higher level *martial only (no partial martial, commoner, or caster)* Maneuver the Champion can start throwing dragons through walls (working on a throwing Feat that enhances the throw/trip Maneuver).

This is where you and I disagree. You seem to be stuck on the Striker, Controller, Defender, Leader model and I think the idea of those roles as formal roles is too confining.

[Mara]

Fair enough. Your table, your rules.That's all I'm willing to say positive about OP's ideas.

Martials can do quite a lot in 5e with creative players and a good DM. If you find them lacking in your own games that is less of a system problem. I've read the DMG, I know about the options in there. Try to get your players to stop looking at their mechanical options and instead just try to do things and then let the mechanics/DM decide how/if it works.

Your high level fighter should be able to say, "I pick up a tree and dive off the cliff, attempting to pin the Dragon's wing into the ground" and you need to figure out what he rolls for that, how much damage it does, and how well it sticks the dragon into the ground.

Tip: Skills are not absolute DCs. The DCs are for very easy 5, easy 10, medium 15, hard 20, very hard 25, nearly impossible 30. Those can either be general terms or how difficult it is for THAT character to do. Athletics can let you lift higher weights than encumbrance allows. A Strength(athletics) of 20 can lift a lot less from a strength 10 no prof wizard than a level 20 str 20 prof champion Fighter. You don't have to run it that way, but that is how I run it because it makes more sense to me that way.

[Sigreid]

That's all I'm willing to say positive about OP's ideas.

Martials can do quite a lot in 5e with creative players and a good DM. If you find them lacking in your own games that is less of a system problem. I've read the DMG, I know about the options in there. Try to get your players to stop looking at their mechanical options and instead just try to do things and then let the mechanics/DM decide how/if it works.

Your high level fighter should be able to say, "I pick up a tree and dive off the cliff, attempting to pin the Dragon's wing into the ground" and you need to figure out what he rolls for that, how much damage it does, and how well it sticks the dragon into the ground.

Tip: Skills are not absolute DCs. The DCs are for very easy 5, easy 10, medium 15, hard 20, very hard 25, nearly impossible 30. Those can either be general terms or how difficult it is for THAT character to do. Athletics can let you lift higher weights than encumbrance allows. A Strength(athletics) of 20 can lift a lot less from a strength 10 no prof wizard than a level 20 str 20 prof champion Fighter. You don't have to run it that way, but that is how I run it because it makes more sense to me that way.

It seems to me that the OP is mostly just looking for "nice things for martials hard coded into the rules." To me that limits more than expands.

[Finieous]

Why not just play a different game? 4E seems like it would fit the bill, or Exalted, and probably a lot of other games as well. That way you'd get the benefits of professional game design and playtesting. This seems like an awful lot of work for what will inevitably be a substandard result.

[Ralanr]

One of the reason Fighters suck is cause they bring nothing new to the table or gain no access to anything new. Every single thing the Fighter does is something everyone does, just either more often or try again.


I...what?

I mean on a concept scale that might be because all other martial classes (except rogue) are pretty much subclasses of the fighter because they just cut the fighting man from 1e into different things.

But in terms of 5e you sound really ignorant of fighters. You think every martial should have access to maneuvers which I'm not really going to argue with. But you say fighters bring nothing new to the table?

Then what were maneuvers? Sure some seem like they were from more advanced combat mechanics that were stripped down (which I think is your overall complaint). But did the combat system have a general combat ability that healed/gave temporary hit points to an ally (Rally)? Or what about things like Evasive footwork, parry, riposte, and commander's strike? The closest I can think of for all class access is feats. Which were a mess in their own right.

And have you ever read the text on the ability, "Know your enemy" (bottom of page 73-74 PHB)? Does anyone remember that only fighters get that ability? Something that not even divination seems to be able to do?

You're right on champion, but I think you just push the same opinion onto battlemaster.

[ThermalSlapShot]

It seems to me that the OP is mostly just looking for "nice things for martials hard coded into the rules." To me that limits more than expands.
No.

I'm looking for "the DM doesn't have to hold my hand" rules.

Or rules that allow martial players to do things that don't start with "can I do...".

Rules that are consistent from table to table.

But wotc doesn't want consistency, balance, or martials to be anything other than *I move and hit*.

I like casters in 5e and I like the core math (mostly), I want to like martials too. And asking the DM if I can do *XYZ* every round doesn't cut it. My character should know what they can do.

[Sigreid]

No.

I'm looking for "the DM doesn't have to hold my hand" rules.

Or rules that allow martial players to do things that don't start with "can I do...".

Rules that are consistent from table to table.

But wotc doesn't want consistency, balance, or martials to be anything other than *I move and hit*.

I like casters in 5e and I like the core math (mostly), I want to like martials too. And asking the DM if I can do *XYZ* every round doesn't cut it. My character should know what they can do.

Frankly, I don't really want consistency either. I want a framework that my friends and I can make our own. Anyway, good luck to you for your table. I'm going to drop out of the thread as I don't agree with anything about your perspective. Have fun.

[Finieous]

And asking the DM if I can do *XYZ* every round doesn't cut it. My character should know what they can do.

All my opinion...

First, your players shouldn't be asking "can I?" They should be telling you what their characters are doing. You should be describing the outcome, directing them to engage the mechanics as appropriate. That's the basic conversation of the game.

Second, if your players are asking "can I?", this won't change it. You'll just be answering "no" in cases where you never did before ("sorry, you don't have that feat/power"). And worse, the good players who didn't ask "can I?" but simply described what their characters were doing will stop doing that if it isn't listed on their character sheet.

Either way, you're better off playing a different game than trying to redesign this one. I would think tweaking 4E casting, for example, would be much simpler than this project. Good luck.

[Fighting_Ferret]

The DMs job isn't rules enforcer, but player enabler... I understand the desire for consistent rules, but I don't think that is the purpose of any tabletop system. The system is a framework that allows a DM to tell an epic story with the player characters as the heroes/protagonists. The more rules you throw on top of the framework, limits players more and more. Want epic heroes... let your players say what they want to do... think of a DC and an appropriate skill/ability and make a check vs the opposed role of the enemy. If they succeed the roll, step back and say...ok how do you want to do this...take their description and run with it. There are still limits...maybe an elaborate manoeuvre would use all their movement, bonus, and action...it may even not be the best mechanical thing they could do, but I guarantee it is something they will remember and talk about for a long time afterwards.

[JNAProductions]

I'm gonna have to echo most everyone else here.

If it works at your table, that's fantastic, and I hope you all have a great time. But I definitely would not want this at my own table.

[Psikerlord]

I think martials are great already and dont need this additional rule.

[Sindeloke]

Unlike everybody else, apparently, I agree with you that martials need more flexibility and tactical capability in combat. Your system seems to fly in the face of 5e's anti-complexity theme, though. Especially since, as you say, with things like shoves you'd never even notice the difference 95% of the time; why implement a rule that creates extra bookkeeping to no visible effect?

My system is to add abilities to weapons (trips/disarms on chains & flails, pushbacks and crit stuns on hammers & maces, defensive rolls with staves, etc). Anyone who gets Extra Attack(/Thirsting Blade) gets to access these abilities. This locks out casters and lets in hybrids pretty smoothly, and means no one has to keep track of anything they're not using regularly. That plus making Expertise with physical abilities available to martials (chiefly Acrobatics/Athletics, but it doesn't hurt to allow Stealth too) is all you need to give martials an equal and unrecoverable advantage in battlefield stunts. Uncapping Shove distance (allow a bull rush or just let martials shove a distance equal to 5ft x Prof, whatever) and improving Grapple (you don't have to go all 3e about it, but at least let it stop M/S spellcasting and attacks against creatures outside the grapple) is a good idea here too.

You could simplify empowering defenders by just saying that martials can freely trade attack types (give up 1-4 attacks for an equal number of extra reactions), and still say they "attacked" on their turn (thereby triggering any bonus attacks from feats/frenzy/martial arts/dual wield, which they can then trade also if they want).

[ThermalSlapShot]

Unlike everybody else, apparently, I agree with you that martials need more flexibility and tactical capability in combat. Your system seems to fly in the face of 5e's anti-complexity theme, though. Especially since, as you say, with things like shoves you'd never even notice the difference 95% of the time; why implement a rule that creates extra bookkeeping to no visible effect?

My system is to add abilities to weapons (trips/disarms on chains & flails, pushbacks and crit stuns on hammers & maces, defensive rolls with staves, etc). Anyone who gets Extra Attack(/Thirsting Blade) gets to access these abilities. This locks out casters and lets in hybrids pretty smoothly, and means no one has to keep track of anything they're not using regularly. That plus making Expertise with physical abilities available to martials (chiefly Acrobatics/Athletics, but it doesn't hurt to allow Stealth too) is all you need to give martials an equal and unrecoverable advantage in battlefield stunts. Uncapping Shove distance (allow a bull rush or just let martials shove a distance equal to 5ft x Prof, whatever) and improving Grapple (you don't have to go all 3e about it, but at least let it stop M/S spellcasting and attacks against creatures outside the grapple) is a good idea here too.

You could simplify empowering defenders by just saying that martials can freely trade attack types (give up 1-4 attacks for an equal number of extra reactions), and still say they "attacked" on their turn (thereby triggering any bonus attacks from feats/frenzy/martial arts/dual wield, which they can then trade also if they want).

The first part I really need to explain. Looking at the two rules side by side you will notice a huge difference. However when using a martial you won't even need to look at the common/basic rules for maneuvers. Just like as a martial you never really need to look at the rules for magic or look at each spell.

Casters won't need to look at the rules for martials either, unless they fall under the partial martial effect, in which case they only need to see part of the martial rules.

What I'm proposing though is no more complicated, actually less so, than the magic system. 5e says it doesn't want complication but it has full casters who can change up their spells every day or learn every spell on their list. If you don't want to use these rules, you can easily use your martial character as intended, as a *I move and hit* character that has to ask DMs if they can attempt to do XYZ. This doesn't add complexity or complications unless the player wants it too.

Think defender is too complicated? The PC can decide to never use defender. If another player wants to use defender and has fun with it, that doesn't mean the other players has to use it.

The problem with giving expertise and weapon abilities is that the core of the system is still stacked against your martial. To do anything with expertise they have to ask permission. And who knows what a DM will allow or disallow, I can't read other DM minds. By having a set list of pre made "yes you can do this" maneuvers you speed up game play and stop DMs from having to make snap decisions about maneuvers, decisions that could cost your PC their theme/RP/effectiveness.

This all helps DMs as much as PCs. Better guidelines for PCs give better guidelines for DMs.

If a Fighter or Paladin says "I want to intimidate the hobgoblin", the DM doesn't have to make up an random DC or even roll. The player instead says " I use Intimidating display on the hobgoblin".

"Intimidating Display: Strength or Charisma Maneuver Check (Versus Str or Cha)
You cause an enemy that can see you within 20' to become intimidated by your display, until the start of your next turn the target has disadvantage on attack rolls or ability checks (your choice) while it can see you.
Unlike other maneuvers you may make a strength or charisma maneuver check against the target’s choice of strength or charisma."

The DM compares your Strength or Charisma save versus the DC of the hobgoblins Str or Cha (or however you want to resolve it, my homebrew idea is not the only way to do it, just the fastest)

This slows down play about as much as using hex or any other ability that gives disadvantage for one round.

One of the problems in core battle rules is that they are very vague while spells are very specific. One may think this helps martials but it actually hurts them. People tend to work on the side of caution so that they don't give out too good of abilities and cause problems within the group. If you put both groups as specific then you may allow both to be flexible.

Had a fellow player want to use Frostbite to make a roof beam easy to be destroyed when enemies came into the room. The DM said no and explained that martials should be the flexible ones. That sucked because the Frostbite damaging the beam would have been an awesome help and a pretty cool image. If you make both groups specific then you can use their specific abilities as a base for how flexible they can be.

After showing the DM my initial thoughts on all this and using the new maneuvers in a game, that DM warmed up to the idea of casters being flexible. We ended using a combo attack where my martial threw his great sword (2d6+Str+ reroll 1&2 damage) and the caster used "catapult" as a readied action (whatever you call them) to increase the damage a little(by 1d8 I think) , increase the distance, and make it a Dex save to avoid the damage. Asking for flexibility makes sense, asking for specific doesn't.

A lot of my maneuvers do need tweeked still, they aren't where I want them yet, but they are on the right track.

[Ferrin33]

I don't see the need to take away the simplicity of the base system to give martial characters more options. I think it's better to solve that with the martial classes instead. You would have a learning curve when starting out, that gets progressively more complex as you level up. Instead what happens with your system is that you're thrown in the deep end that requires a sheet to keep track of all the effects, which could have been done on a class-by-class basis.

Kind of like how 3.5 had Tome of Battle, I like how they did things there.

[KorvinStarmast]

-Once you start focusing on spells you become a partial martial.
Partial Martial. I like it.
I think I'll name my next Ranger a variation on Partial Martial: Marshall Parcell, Purcel Martial, Marcel Parsel or Marcel Parsol ... something like that.

Thanks for the inspiration.

Beyond that ... someone is overthinking it.

If you want to deal with the perceived imbalance between martials and casters, then add an attack/action about every three levels so that the martial has six at level 20. The martial at high levels begins to resemble Bruce Lee in one of those 70's films, where they sped up the film to make it look like he was a veritable whirlwind.

Hmm, take a look at high level Barbarians in the early versions of Diablo II, and the whirlwind wave of destruction that screamed across our various PC screens before they nerfed it a bit in one of the patches.

Adding attacks/actions might be a simpler way to address what you see as an imbalance.

[Vogonjeltz]

Like... Basically it means that when attacking commoners and casters are not proficient with basic maneuvers and can not even use the better martial options.

Right. Isn't the upshot of this that the Eldritch Knights (partial casters) who had no problem shoving people prior to level 3, but after level 3 they're getting disadvantage for some reason? That's the part that isn't making sense for me. (Or did I miss a line about them still being treated entirely as martials? I think this needs clarification then.)


Defender
Str or Dex 13+

As an action, you may give up your weapon attacks for your turn in order to be able to make any number of OA until the start of your next turn. Creatures provoke OA when they attack creatures adjacent to you, move into your melee weapon reach, or cast a spell (this OA happens before the spell is finished).

Special: If you have a Str or Dex of 17+ you may use your action to make one weapon attack but give your extra attack to use Defender. You have the Extra Attack class feature to use this. If you gain more than one extra attack (Fighter 11) you only have to give up one of them to use this.

The marking combat option is already superior to this, you don't have to give up attacks for it to work. Every target you hit is marked and opportunity attacks cost no reaction against them.


Power Attack
Str 13+

Whenever you attempt a Strength based weapon attack, subtract a number from your proficiency bonus. Add triple that amount to the damage roll. If you have multiple attacks you may power attack with any number of your attacks, choosing as you make the attack if you will use Power Attack. You can not use Power Attack to bring your Proficiency Bonus below 1.

Heads up, this is better than the GWM Feat (-5 for +10 vs up to -6 for +18). Maybe that's the intention, I suppose you could just give the player who you feel are having a tough time some freebies.


No.

I'm looking for "the DM doesn't have to hold my hand" rules.

Or rules that allow martial players to do things that don't start with "can I do...".

I'd advise trying to alter their outlook so it's less "Mother May I?" and more "I want to do X, what rolls do I need to make to make that happen?" Maybe you want to pre-determine a structure on what kinds of rolls are needed to execute various activities and then familiarize your players with those so they have a broader swath of ideas.

That can be a good thing if they often find themselves stuck in a rut for creativity and suffering writers block for character actions.


If a Fighter or Paladin says "I want to intimidate the hobgoblin", the DM doesn't have to make up an random DC or even roll. The player instead says " I use Intimidating display on the hobgoblin".

"Intimidating Display: Strength or Charisma Maneuver Check (Versus Str or Cha)
You cause an enemy that can see you within 20' to become intimidated by your display, until the start of your next turn the target has disadvantage on attack rolls or ability checks (your choice) while it can see you.
Unlike other maneuvers you may make a strength or charisma maneuver check against the target’s choice of strength or charisma."

I mean, I don't think there's a problem with codifying some types of activities, but I'd caution against tossing out DM discretion completely as that could lead to all the problems that 3.5e had stemming from over-codification. I mean, as long as you're careful, and your players are good with it (or even prefer it) go for it.

I'd also say that the example provided (intimidation) is basically a contest as outlined on page 174 of the PHB. DCs are only really applicable when there's no opposing party.

[Sigreid]

I know I said I was out but I couldn't resist. I think that this will actually limit the martials. The reason is that for most of the people I've met if they have defined abilities for certain things they will confine themselves to that ability. If it's free form it adds a bit of what the hell, lets try it. But, I'm partial to games like D6 Star Wars Where you had attributes that defined your natural talents, skill levels that defined what you were trained above general education on and there were DC guidelines for the GM to set challenges based the cool thing the player says he's going to do.

Just my opinion.

[Mjolnirbear]

My viewpoint is different.

Martials are ideal characters for newer players. You can pick up many of the rules quickly and don't have to spend 30 picking your spells. It's useable almost right out of the box.

I have lots of new players in my group. I think everyone but me is new. I know a lot of the rules, but after a terrible first DMing experience years ago i realized that knowing the rules does not a good DM make.

So ive been training our current DM. I describe a weird funky action for my character to do and grade him on his responses. So far it's been great. Which is awesome, because my current paladin doesnt do anything by the book.

I have always played a caster before this game. Because move-attack-move is boring. What i failed to realize until now is that it's only boring if you fail to apply imagination.

I admit it's easier as a dexadin. Tumbling about, leaping from rooftops, acrobatic stunts and using the environment are just easier to picture with dexterity. But it does make the point: you get what you put into it.

Also there are things only martials can do. Action Surge. Rage. Second Wind. Unarmoured Defense. Extra Attack. Fighting style. Hunter's Mark. Flurry of Blows. Ki Strike. Colossus Slayer. Maneuvers. Increased crit range. Auras. Lay On Hands. Fighters in particular get more ASIs than any other class, which makes it unparallelled in combat versatility.

But more than that, the stuff they do that anyone can do, they do so much better.

Take Shove. Anyone can do it, even if they lack proficiency. But if a wizard shoves: he didnt cast a spell. He can't follow up. He did no damage. And if he succeeds he can't even take advantage of it. Furthermore, the wizard has to put his squishy hide into melee range: a risky thing to do where concentration checks are kinda his thing.

The fighter, though, can take proficiency. He's also likely got a high strength. So the fighter has much better chances of succeeding. And on top of that he has multiple attacks that can successfully take advantage (heh) of the situation. Assuming he didnt just throw the guy off the cliff.

A martial can make better use of combat tricks like Shove, Grapple, Disarm, Mark, and Climb onto Bigger Creature. A caster can do them, but so what? A martial is simply better, stronger and more versatile in combat.

You could build your sorceror with high strength; take Athletics proficiency; get him armor and weapons; give him the constitution or dexterity needed to stay alive. But barring multiclass, he can't take advantage of the enemy he just knocked prone. He only ever has the one attack. In melee range he makes more concetration checks. And he can't nova by just attacking.

Martials are sitting at the highest single-target DPS. They are tougher and absorb more blows. They are not penalized with melee combat since they rarely care about concentration (pallies and rangers excepted here). They can take full advantage of spells like Haste and Bless and do so effectively.

Two sessions ago, my paladin used Climb Onto Bigger Creature to climb onto a dragon. Why would a wizard do that? It gives him no advantage and puts him at significant risk. He *could* cast Chill Touch or Shocking Grasp, and at the inn later he'd have bragging rights about riding a dragon, but my paladin was actually slightly safer there, had more attacks at advantage, and is better able to make use of his position.

And the necromancer and his horde of undeath? The thing is that spells are a finite resource. He's invested significant power into it and must continue to do so constantly. Funny enough, it's the Martial that would make this army truly OP: the Oathbreaker.

Furthermore, any caster can use a spell or combination of spells to be as tough, dexterous, high-AC as any fighter. But those spells are temporary; can be dispelled; and ultimately are a huge investment of time and imagination to make a character that can sometimes do what a martial can do better, ALL THE TIME. Why would anyone build a wizard just to be a second-rate fighter?

If you think a martial is weaker than a caster, or more boring, then you haven't been playing him right. It took this edition before i realised that though.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you think a martial is weaker than a caster, or more boring, then you haven't been playing him right. It took this edition before i realised that though. The barbarian in our party completely agrees with this sentiment.

[EggKookoo]

If you want to deal with the perceived imbalance between martials and casters, then add an attack/action about every three levels so that the martial has six at level 20. The martial at high levels begins to resemble Bruce Lee in one of those 70's films, where they sped up the film to make it look like he was a veritable whirlwind.

I thought it was the other way around. Didn't he punch in less than 1/24 of a second, so often his hits would be masked by the camera shutter, and he had to slow himself down so that they could actually film him fighting? Or is that a myth?