What if you remove the dice for battle maneuvers

[Sir cryosin]

What if you remove the superiority die. And just let the battlemaster do the maneuvers. With out having the dice. What do y'all think of this.

[D-naras]

It gets tedious when you realise that the battlemaster will force a save with every hit forever and ever after level 3.

[StoicLeaf]

If you're removing the extra number the dice gives you but still keeping the limited amount of uses, then many maneuvers lose their appeal.
If you're simply removing the limit on how many maneuvers a BM can use then you've just made fighter3 a mandatory pick for any non caster.

[Arkhios]

I agree that not adding a superiority die on a maneuver would decrease their appeal, but in all honesty, I think you could make them all become at-will in return, with maybe a clause of being usable only once per each instance.

[Specter]

If you make the maneuvers once per turn, it could work. Then of course, things like Riposte eould be mandatory.

[Sir cryosin]

What I was thinking of getting rid of the superiority dice. Making it were you can use a number of maneuvers equal to you're intelligent modifier per round. I mean your a BATTLEMASTER using you knowledge of warfare to get the upper hand on your opponents. Making it were you can only do that a few times bony feel like a Battlemaster. With this change feels like playing a full fighter and not dipping more fun to play. Yes it might be able to be exploded by MC. But I don't think it will be too much because there are so few int classes.

[Matticusrex]

It would almost put them at the power level of Paladins and RV-Rangers. So more power to you. Don't allow it to be multi-classed though.

[Hrugner]

fighter would become an int class. 1d8xint bonus damage per round is potent as hell when added on to a class, that's ignoring the saves they'd be forcing. 3rd level Fighter with crossbow master pops the target twice for fear and prone, that's pretty sweet to do every turn. riposte every turn would also change things up considerably.

What is the problem you're hoping to solve with this change?

[Captain Panda]

It wouldn't work. Way, way too much.

[Pex]

Most of the maneuvers anyone can do already. The superiority die is the game mechanic to signify the Battlemaster is better at it.

Why would you want to take it away anyway? Why can't fighters have nice things?

[Knaight]

Why would you want to take it away anyway? Why can't fighters have nice things?

So removing the dice and thus the limits caused by the dice is taking away nice things from fighters now? Every attack getting to be a maneuver more than compensates for the minor loss of dice.

[Sigreid]

A counter thought along similar lines. Would it be good or bad if the BM only got 1 die, but got it at the start of each of their turns. I'm not looking at BM right now, but if at any point they get another die as a class feature or that feat it would give them another die/round. Idea being while they can't go all maneuvers all the time, they can use at least one each round.

[Vogonjeltz]

What if you remove the superiority die. And just let the battlemaster do the maneuvers. With out having the dice. What do y'all think of this.

Rally would get added value, as would riposte and the like.

I think you'd rapidly find yourself reimposing short rest limitations.

Oh, and some, like Sweeping Strikes are just usless without the die. (Frankly I don't see a point to it at all already).

[Pex]

So removing the dice and thus the limits caused by the dice is taking away nice things from fighters now? Every attack getting to be a maneuver more than compensates for the minor loss of dice.

Anyone can do most of the maneuvers. The superiority dice is what separates the Battlemaster from the pack.

[Naanomi]

A few maneuvers are clearly too strong in this model (an archer with menacing strike 4-5 times a round?); and others just don't work (precise attack, trip attack, evasive maneuvers) unless you have some other way of generating the numerical bonus to feed them

Also makes Martial Initiate a 'must have' Feat for... anyone who makes weapon attacks

What maneuvers specifically do you envision getting used with this idea?

[Hrugner]

A counter thought along similar lines. Would it be good or bad if the BM only got 1 die, but got it at the start of each of their turns. I'm not looking at BM right now, but if at any point they get another die as a class feature or that feat it would give them another die/round. Idea being while they can't go all maneuvers all the time, they can use at least one each round.

that feat with riposte would become mandatory for most melee types.

[Sigreid]

that feat with riposte would become mandatory for most melee types.

To clarify, the feat would not change for non-battle masters. The Superiority die per round would only be a special battle master thing. Sorry I wasn't clear.

[Sir cryosin]

Anyone can do most of the maneuvers. The superiority dice is what separates the Battlemaster from the pack.

Yes you can shove someone prone but you cant make a weapon attack as part of shoveling them prone.



What this is changing is taking away the extra damage. But giving fighter more versatility and a little more to do in combat other them I swing my sword. Also I don't see riposte being to op since. The extra damage dice is gone. Also tying it to intelligence modifier. Your not doing it all the time and it gives the fighter a little bit more incentive to invest more into intelligence.

I would like some input on things that would be. Game breaking with this change. Not just saying it's op if y'all would be so kind.

[Sir cryosin]

Sweeping attack you just give the damage you just did to your target to the guy next to him if your original roll to to hit hits his AC as well.

I see no problem with feinting attack you still get adv on attacks.

As for Rally just change it to temp HP equal to you're fighter level.

[thepsyker]

I think with the proper mix of action requirements and/or opposed skill/ability checks depending on the maneuver this would work. Maybe use proficency bonus for those maneuvers that need a number like precision attack. You might also need to add level gates to a few abilities like on warlock invocations to prevent a few options from being to good for a short dip. Personnaly something like this would save the class for me as I hate Superiority Dice.

[TripleD]

I really like the idea (I'm fleshing out a similar concept for sorcerers and meta magic) but it would be too powerful for the manoeuvres as written. Tweak them a bit and you should be golden.

[Sir cryosin]

A few maneuvers are clearly too strong in this model (an archer with menacing strike 4-5 times a round?); and others just don't work (precise attack, trip attack, evasive maneuvers) unless you have some other way of generating the numerical bonus to feed them

Also makes Martial Initiate a 'must have' Feat for... anyone who makes weapon attacks

What maneuvers specifically do you envision getting used with this idea?

First menacing strike can be abused. Wording would need a little rewrite to were you can only do that once a round.

Precise attack could be easily reworded to allowing you to make the attack again.
As for trip attack and evassive ones are find.

And spending a feat tax on two maneuvers is find. Because you can only do them up to your intelligent modifier minimum of one. So unless your spending more ASI to boost your int it keeps it a bit more balanced. Most classes are a bit mad as is.

For the maneuvers that I envision is all.

[RSP]

What if you remove the superiority die. And just let the battlemaster do the maneuvers. With out having the dice. What do y'all think of this.

I wouldn't do it as it would break the archetype away with the others, balance-wise.

I do think it's odd that Battlemasters can only riposte so often, or try a disarm only a few times before they're just spent.

I'd be more open to try something like "you get one maneuver per turn (or maybe round)" though even this eats into the Battlemaster's nova.

And yeah, it would be OP to have endless disarm attacks, tripping attacks, menacing attacks, ripostes, lunging attacks, etc, even with the 1 maneuver per attack rule.

Ranged fighters would become much better, for one thing, and theyre already probably the top tier for optimizing the class.

[Pex]

Yes you can shove someone prone but you cant make a weapon attack as part of shoveling them prone.



What this is changing is taking away the extra damage. But giving fighter more versatility and a little more to do in combat other them I swing my sword. Also I don't see riposte being to op since. The extra damage dice is gone. Also tying it to intelligence modifier. Your not doing it all the time and it gives the fighter a little bit more incentive to invest more into intelligence.

I would like some input on things that would be. Game breaking with this change. Not just saying it's op if y'all would be so kind.

Taking away the extra damage is denying the fighter nice things because doing damage in combat is the fighter's shtick with the maneuvers being how the Battlemaster does it.

[Hrugner]

There may be a middle solution to this that could work. Would letting the fighter spend their bonus action for a free maneuver that round solve whatever the problem is?

[Durazno]

So you mean, like, the fighter spends her bonus action and that turn she can do one maneuver without the benefit of a superiority die?

[ShikomeKidoMi]

So you mean, like, the fighter spends her bonus action and that turn she can do one maneuver without the benefit of a superiority die?

Hm... But without having to spend one either? That's not a bad idea. A bonus action would limit it to once/round.

If you wanted to do minimal changes to the class, you could replace their current bad level 20 capstone with that ability.

[SharkForce]

allowing basically every attack to force a save is going to get ridiculous very quickly.

for example, let's suppose a DC 13 wisdom save vs fear was being forced on every attack through menacing strike (and we'll presume the fighter is at least level 5 and gets 3 attacks, 2 from class and one from a feat). we'll even make the target have a +8 on the save.

you might look at that and think that the target will usually make the save... and you'd be completely wrong. because the target is probably making 2-3 saves per round, and needing to save twice takes that supposedly good chance to save (75%) and makes it a much less attractive 56.25% or even 42.19% (so the target is probably spending about one in every 2 rounds frightened).

and that's assuming only DC 13 vs a +8. when you're running DC 13, the enemy probably only has a +4 or +5 tops... so it's more like 22% to 36% chance. when you get to higher levels, if you can force a comparatively weak save (say, only +1 to +4) against DC 19 or more, possibly as often as 5 times per round (or 6 with a reaction attack), well, let's just say that 100% uptime on the status effects becomes fairly plausible against anything that doesn't have excellent saving throws in all attributes the battlemaster can target (and still has a decent chance even if the target does have good saves against everything).

and not only that, but this is all just from a 3 level dip.

trust me, it sounds fine until you start to understand the sheer volume of saving throws you can force, and how quickly that brings the chance of the target failing at least one saving throw uncomfortably high.

now, i could certainly see, oh, i dunno... changing the battlemaster capstone to getting 1 superiority die per round instead of per battle when all of them have been spent... i mean, the actual capstone is pretty lame, and i think once per round after you've used your nova is a strong but not absurdly strong ability. but getting unlimited use per round? hell no. you'd have to be stupid to build any martial that doesn't include at least 3 battlemaster levels.

[Hrugner]

So you mean, like, the fighter spends her bonus action and that turn she can do one maneuver without the benefit of a superiority die?

Yeah. It sucks to lose a bonus action as that is likely an attack, but it also gives them constant access to their maneuvers. It would be nice to have the opportunity to be judicious in the use of superiority dice without sacrificing your archetype benefit to being overly frugal.

[djreynolds]

Shield master allows a shove for free every turn, may not always work out, but it is a powerful maneuver and not expensive in terms of feats

Now I just posted somewhere else, in the DMG 271, you can give up an attack to disarm or shove or trip like a BM already, you don't do any damage

So allowing a BM to just do these maneuvers like a shield master does for a bonus action is actually pretty cool.

And you could just allow any player to do them.... fluff the martial adept feat and say you can do these 2 maneuvers (only one at a time) as a bonus action as long as you are taking the attack action

So now there is a cost, everyone at the table could do these maneuvers as a BA, but only the battlemaster would have more maneuvers to choose from

[Zalabim]

My idea I think would be functional was to forgo the damage from one hit to regain a die, up to your maximum amount at a time.

[djreynolds]

Some of the BM's stuff you can do as a contest simply by giving up an attack, but always your athletics vs their acrobatic/athletics check or your attack roll vs their acrobatic/athletics check

Some of the BM's stuff is cool and spell like, be it menacing, taunt and even precision (bless/inspiration)

Some are reactionary

And though the damage of these does go up to 1d12, I use them for their ability to grant advantage, crowd control, defense, accuracy....

I could seriously ponder allowing something along these lines,

Now the thing is the maneuvers for the most part are post hit riders like smite, and if you short rest you get at 15th level, 12-18 a day to use and assuming an "average" fight is 10 rounds, you could spread it out to a maneuver every other round for 3.. 10 round fights

Now if we took away the damage from these and you could just add them to you attacks, perhaps one maneuver to one opponent per turn per attack (extra attack)... for example an 11th level BM could trip 3 ogres, but couldn't trip, push, or frighten only one

That could work and obviously you would have to limit rally somehow, and though riposte is strong it is a reaction so you only got one.

[RSP]

Shield master allows a shove for free every turn, may not always work out, but it is a powerful maneuver and not expensive in terms of feats

Now I just posted somewhere else, in the DMG 271, you can give up an attack to disarm or shove or trip like a BM already, you don't do any damage

So allowing a BM to just do these maneuvers like a shield master does for a bonus action is actually pretty cool.

And you could just allow any player to do them.... fluff the martial adept feat and say you can do these 2 maneuvers (only one at a time) as a bonus action as long as you are taking the attack action

So now there is a cost, everyone at the table could do these maneuvers as a BA, but only the battlemaster would have more maneuvers to choose from

Shield Master is a good Feat. But certainly less powerful then maneuvers every attack.

As for the DMG option, that's an optional system (one my table doesn't use because it weakens the BM).

If you play where everyone can automatically do maneuvers anyway, a Rogue is probably better at doing them then a BM is, due to Expertise, so that may be why you feel the BM is underpowered.

Very similar to those who allow casters to subtlety cast spells using Deception checks: you'll think metamagic and Sorcerers are underpowered if everyone can do what's supposed to be their signature moves.

I would imagine if you're playing with these rules, certain classes will feel cheated and need a boost.

[djreynolds]

Right but to disarm with a weapon in the DMG is your attack roll vs their athletics or acrobatics checks

It could be cool

I often will give up an attack as a champion, to trip someone with an athletics checks (I always will multiclass rogue or bard) or disarm

I love superiority dice because they are cool and really work well for all types of combat and combatants

[D-naras]

As I said before, I feel that it will considerably slow down the game. The bm will force at least 1 save per turn which will get annoying fast. IMO it needs a limiter just for that. It would also help to make some maneuvers like riposte available at higher levels since that is the berserker's highest level ability and it will suck for them

[Misterwhisper]

You could just eliminate the superiority dice and just say that the battle master may use a combat maneuver once per turn but that maneuver can still cause damage.

Where everyone else has to give up an attack to trip, disarm, or whatever. The battle master can add it to their attack 1 time per turn.

[Vogonjeltz]

To clarify, the feat would not change for non-battle masters. The Superiority die per round would only be a special battle master thing. Sorry I wasn't clear.

This already sounded overly complicated. What's the point of wrecking a perfectly good system anyway?

[Sir cryosin]

I glad I stated this thread because it providing a lot of insight and some inspiration to flush this idea out.
1: I still like tying it to int
2: you can only use one maneuver on a creature per turn.
3: the maneuver precision you could just add your proficiency bonus twice
4: as for Rally add your proficiency bonus plus your charisma modifier it's not bad. Being it a free temp HP.aube add on it can only be used once per round.

I understand that they balance everything around what is it 6 to 8 and counters per adventuring day and that's an average of venturing day but I think that's one of the flaws of the system. I mean how many of you out there have had six to eight and counters per venturing day. Now as the DM I do not run pre-made modules but for a game that I'm a player in my DM does nothing but run modules and this might just be his style but we never have six to eight and counters for adventuring day I don't even think the books for the modules call for 6 to 8 eight and counters per venturing day but then again like I said I don't run the modules I don't buy the modules I don't read the modules I just play in them. Now if they do have if they do call for 6 to 8 encounters they called me out on it I will admit that I'm wrong. I can go on a long intangent about short rest classes and mechanics but I won't here at lease. Any way my point is you don't get the books"AVERAGE" day leaving you feeling unsatisfied. Especially when you're in a party of PCS that don't have short rest mechanics. making changes to like getting rid of the superiority dice and opening up the Maneuvers with a little bit of stipulations. Like above does not add to there damage but open up more versatility in options.

[djreynolds]

Have you ever tried getting rid of the short rest mechanics?

I simply multiply all short abilities by 3. So 10th level monk has 30KI rechargeable on a long rest. Cleric has so many channel divinity.

And for hit die, I use the five minute breather. Quickly check your gear and breach the door. It works.

So a 4th level BM would have 12 maneuvers to use a day, then 15 at 7th, than 18 at 15th. Throw in martial adept and it becomes 3 more a day on top of it.

[Misterwhisper]

Have you ever tried getting rid of the short rest mechanics?

I simply multiply all short abilities by 3. So 10th level monk has 30KI rechargeable on a long rest. Cleric has so many channel divinity.

And for hit die, I use the five minute breather. Quickly check your gear and breach the door. It works.

So a 4th level BM would have 12 maneuvers to use a day, then 15 at 7th, than 18 at 15th. Throw in martial adept and it becomes 3 more a day on top of it.

That rule makes some classes tremendously overpowered.

[GPS]

What I was thinking of getting rid of the superiority dice. Making it were you can use a number of maneuvers equal to you're intelligent modifier per round. I mean your a BATTLEMASTER using you knowledge of warfare to get the upper hand on your opponents. Making it were you can only do that a few times bony feel like a Battlemaster. With this change feels like playing a full fighter and not dipping more fun to play. Yes it might be able to be exploded by MC. But I don't think it will be too much because there are so few int classes.

Also known as the fighter with negative superiority dice. People multiclassing into fighter would be fine, but full fighter would be super screwed. Who makes a fighter with INT? Seems a bit to MAD to work, too many stats.

[CantigThimble]

Also known as the fighter with negative superiority dice. People multiclassing into fighter would be fine, but full fighter would be super screwed. Who makes a fighter with INT? Seems a bit to MAD to work, too many stats.

No more so than Eldritch Knight.

[Misterwhisper]

No more so than Eldritch Knight.

Most eldritch knights I have ever seen did not bother boosting their int, they just used spells where it did not matter.

[Sigreid]

This already sounded overly complicated. What's the point of wrecking a perfectly good system anyway?

People were interested in ideas, so I tossed one. I'm good with the way it is but if people want help figuring something that will make their table work better for them, I'm game to try.

[Sir cryosin]

Also known as the fighter with negative superiority dice. People multiclassing into fighter would be fine, but full fighter would be super screwed. Who makes a fighter with INT? Seems a bit to MAD to work, too many stats.

How does adding int make it mad all a fighter needs is str or Dex then con that's two main stats. It no more the Paladin, ranger, monk

[Arkhios]

Most eldritch knights I have ever seen did not bother boosting their int, they just used spells where it did not matter.

Still, an Eldritch Knight doesn't really need anything but Strength or Dexterity (depending on their choice of fighting method), maybe a little Constitution because hit points are always nice, and Intelligence if they want to be decent with their save-inducing spells.

[StoicLeaf]

If you're going to start adding int requirements to a class because "battlefield knowledge" then you're going to have to be fair and **** over all the other classes too!

casters now need dex; somatic spell components require careful and precise hand-eye coordination; spell effect is still governed by int/cha, but your spell slots are now dictated by your dex modifier!
bards now require con. Let's face it, performers need a good set of lungs on them and strong vocal chords to match. No one wants to hear a story being whispered in a high pitched whiny voice.
monks now also require str, con and int. Technique can only do so much; you're going to need the body mass and muscles to make sure those hits count and the intelligence to know where all the pressure points are.


Mockery aside, I don't understand why you want to get rid of the dice. Encounter numbers are irrelevant, ultimately, as long as you're getting your SRs you're all good.
As a counter point, 5e combat is more exciting if you don't always have all your resources ready to go. Your changes remove resource management from the game, I think that's a bad thing.

[djreynolds]

That rule makes some classes tremendously overpowered.

It works depending on the battles. Just ask yourself how many short rests would your party normally get in a day, 2, 3, or 4

And simply multiply short abilities by that number

I promise you this works, you might think the monk has so much in KI points but that's for the whole day. Even warlock will run out.

So a 10th level monk has 10 KI points, he could short rest after every battle if safety or time permitted
But sometimes homebrew adventures aren't designed that way, so ask yourself how many big battles will the party face today and how many times you might have allowed them to rest. So a 10th level monk could have 10, 20, 30, or 40 KI for the day and a paladin would have 2,3, or 4 channel divinity uses ready to go

This has really worked at our table when we are not using short rest as much just because players like to end the session on a long rest and pick back up at the end of a long rest

especially for homebrew, and it works with quick 5 minute breathers for hit die

But for the thread, if you took away the damage and just allowed maneuvers a turn, that is very cool.
At least worth some work on my end to see if it works