How Do You See A Battlemaster Vs. Any Other Fighter

[Allistar]

I come from a background of HEMA, kendo, and a some formal fencing, and there is a lot of technique that goes into fighting with these weapons. Needless to say after a little milling through the player's handbook and looking at the battlemaster it spoke out to me. However it gave me a puzzling question to consider. If battlemasters are the only ones that get access to parries, repostes, and everything between, what does normal combat look like?

To call back on HEMA a little bit these "combat arts" aren't anything special at all, at least not in the context of historical sword fighting. They treat the ability to parry, or feint as some kind of achievement, but realistically its just another motion and in some weapons just part of their flow. Here's some sabre sparring for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5w2Mh6CyXo
See how many times they catch each other's blades, how they try and trick each other out with false cuts, and how they try and capitalize on any mistake the opponent makes. This is about an average tuesday, but if 5e is to be believed these people have truly transcended beyond us mortals.

I refuse to think that for anyone except the barbarian that combat is basically just swinging a weapon at the opponent until one of you dies, but it kinda seems like that's what is implied. Maybe that's only for weapons you're not proficient in, but then what does proficiency look like? Is it knowing what cuts or thrusts to throw in which situations? Is it knowing how to block/dodge these cuts and thrusts? Sounds a lot like the battlemaster to me....

I don't know, what do you think?

[Evaar]

I don't think it should be seen as everyone else just standing there like rock 'em sock 'em robots until the other guy's head pops off.

Rather, the Battlemaster can do these maneuvers reliably at any time. A combat turn is 6 seconds, so there are presumably multiple probing strikes and feints happening that are leading up to the actual attack(s) that is/are rolled. A Battlemaster is someone who can, over the course of those 6 seconds, force an opponent into the right situation for whatever maneuver they're doing. Or someone who can parry a strike that would have hit anyone else.

All decent martials are considered to have a strong grasp of the standard strike/dodge/block/parry set of moves, but the battlemaster is someone who elevates those maneuvers into an art form. Or, if not art, at least a brutally efficient and masterful technique.

[erok0809]

I kinda see the Champion fighter (the eldritch knight is a slightly different mold, despite the fighter chassis) as someone who wins through determination and grit, as opposed to perfection with their weapon. They have a bit more versatility (second fighting style), and are better at scoring that perfect hit right when they need it (improved/superior crit). When they're near their peak power, they're nearly impossible to put down (survivor). They're the Shonen protagonist.

The Battlemaster, on the other hand, is the Shonen deuteragonist/antihero guy in a lot of stories. The combat genius, super analytical about their opponents, knows the most techniques and how best to apply them, etc. Of course they have some hidden talents as well with their artisan's tool proficiency, but for the most part they're all about combat and how to best do it, and they're constantly learning new techniques and getting more proficient in them, and finally when they're near their peak they're almost never without some technique up their sleeve, even when you thought they were exhausted.

That's my two cents on it anyway. Obviously personality doesn't really come into it; you can play a plucky battlemaster or a cold and analytical champion, but those are the characters I see when I read the abilities.

[Keravath]

The way I tend to interpret it, all the fighters use techniques. Parry, riposte, block, etc, they are part of normal combat. In regular combat, these are narrative tools only and could contribute to why an opponent missed or a character hit if you are describing it.

However, the Battlemaster has honed his ability at these maneuvers so that he can get them to do more. Sometimes when an opponent attacks, the battlemaster can turn the effective block they made that caused the opponent to miss into an unexpected weapon attack from them. Similarly, when a battlemaster parries there is a chance, if they didn't cause the attack to miss altogether, that they might reduce the damage (which another fighter could not do).

Basically, I personally think of the battlemaster having the opportunity to execute technique so well (4 times/short rest to start with) that the techniques do more than when executed by a champion/eldritch knight or other fighter.

I tend to think of barbarians using a more brute force approach but even then they likely use techniques as part of combat but perhaps not as technical as a fighter.

[Grey Watcher]

I come from a background of HEMA, kendo, and a some formal fencing, and there is a lot of technique that goes into fighting with these weapons. Needless to say after a little milling through the player's handbook and looking at the battlemaster it spoke out to me. However it gave me a puzzling question to consider. If battlemasters are the only ones that get access to parries, repostes, and everything between, what does normal combat look like?

To call back on HEMA a little bit these "combat arts" aren't anything special at all, at least not in the context of historical sword fighting. They treat the ability to parry, or feint as some kind of achievement, but realistically its just another motion and in some weapons just part of their flow. Here's some sabre sparring for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5w2Mh6CyXo
See how many times they catch each other's blades, how they try and trick each other out with false cuts, and how they try and capitalize on any mistake the opponent makes. This is about an average tuesday, but if 5e is to be believed these people have truly transcended beyond us mortals.

I refuse to think that for anyone except the barbarian that combat is basically just swinging a weapon at the opponent until one of you dies, but it kinda seems like that's what is implied. Maybe that's only for weapons you're not proficient in, but then what does proficiency look like? Is it knowing what cuts or thrusts to throw in which situations? Is it knowing how to block/dodge these cuts and thrusts? Sounds a lot like the battlemaster to me....

I don't know, what do you think?

Maybe think of it, as others have said, as less that the Battle Master is the only one doing these things, but as being exceptionally good at the chosen maneuvers. So a Champion and a no-frills NPC warrior might be trying minor feints and and blocks as the opportunities present themselves, but the Battle Master has, well, mastered the ebb and flow of combat, and thus is able to manipulate his opponents' decisions much more skillfully, and without having to forgo actually landing a telling (read HP damaging) blow.

Let's compare basic Shove, which anyone can attempt, to the Martial Maneuver Pushing Attack:



Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

The target must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Instead of making an attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). You succeed automatically if the target is incapacitated. If you succeed, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you.




When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to drive the target back. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and if the target is Large or smaller, it must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, you push the target up to 15 feet away from you.

The key thing, mechanically speaking, is that the Battle Master can push you back and hurt you for damage in the same attack (to say nothing of pushing you back farther on top of it). Heck, strictly speaking, the BM doesn't have to commit to the push until after the attack has definitely hit, while the Champion attempting a shove has to forgo an HP-damaging hit just to make the attempt. The target also doesn't get the option to use Dexterity to resist and the Battle Master doesn't have to roll their side of the contest, so there's generally more consistency there.

TL;DR, it's not that the Battle Master is the only person doing these things, it's just that they're the best.

[Allistar]

Maybe think of it, as others have said, as less that the Battle Master is the only one doing these things, but as being exceptionally good at the chosen maneuvers. So a Champion and a no-frills NPC warrior might be trying minor feints and and blocks as the opportunities present themselves, but the Battle Master has, well, mastered the ebb and flow of combat, and thus is able to manipulate his opponents' decisions much more skillfully, and without having to forgo actually landing a telling (read HP damaging) blow.

I guess that's what they're trying to convey, but from my perspective it means something a mite different. The fact that these champions are only able to do minor feints, parries, and cant even riposte correctly really just makes them bad swordsman.

I suppose the solution is to just bring everybody up so that the skill gap seems even more colossal. Perhaps normal fighters are pretty good at these moves, and based on their actions the previous turns they do different attacks/block in a different manner. All the while the BM is over here making split second blocks, using deflective parries in order to turn an opponent's attack into their own, and keeping pressure on the opponent in order to force their movements until they mess up.

Dunno, just seems weird is all

[Frozenstep]

One thing to remember is you're not just fighting other dudes with swords, you're fighting all sorts of monsters that may not be humanoid in any way. Pulling off a parry or Riposte against an enemy body type you've never seen before might prove challenging. It might even be that a champion isn't as good with all those HEMA techniques because they aren't helping him when he gets crushed by a giant's club, he's developing other techniques that help instead.

For the battlemaster, those techniques do help...to a point. If you'll notice, they can't do so endlessly, they'll run out of dice. What do those dice represent? Perhaps some kind of extra focus, who knows, but the point is it has to be more special then a normal parry/riposte because they completely lose the ability to do it if they keep it up. I mean, seriously, in your fencing do you lose the ability to make a feint after 3 parries and a riposte?

I personally like to think of it as being so good at a select few techniques that sometimes when you focus, you can analyze the situation in an instant and figure out a way to make that technique work where no one else could have. To read your opponent, even when they aren't humanoid, and find opportunities before they're even visible.

[Keravath]

I guess that's what they're trying to convey, but from my perspective it means something a mite different. The fact that these champions are only able to do minor feints, parries, and cant even riposte correctly really just makes them bad swordsman.

I suppose the solution is to just bring everybody up so that the skill gap seems even more colossal. Perhaps normal fighters are pretty good at these moves, and based on their actions the previous turns they do different attacks/block in a different manner. All the while the BM is over here making split second blocks, using deflective parries in order to turn an opponent's attack into their own, and keeping pressure on the opponent in order to force their movements until they mess up.

Dunno, just seems weird is all

I don't think that is the way to look at it at all. Champion fighters execute amazing parries, blocks and ripostes all the time. The entire fight, both the opponents and the characters, are simultaneous. Everyone is moving at the same time, constantly dodging, moving, blocking and parrying. ALL of this action is resolved in the game system by a die roll to hit by both opponents and characters, sometimes with more than one roll if the character is good enough to manage more than one attack.

The GAME breaks it down into initiative, die rolls and movement in order to keep it moving along. The actual action is continuous. Do you really think that the characters each move 30' stop and wait for an opponent or other player to move their 30' and swing their sword? That everyone takes turns swinging their sword? "Your turn, try to hit me now. Nope missed, now I get to try to swing."? This is how the GAME mechanically structure actions that are continuous and happening all the time.

Some of the hits will be due to ripostes, some of the misses may be due to blocks or parries. All of the capabilities are built into the AC and to hit modifiers of each character.

However, the battlemaster has trained and honed their abilities in these maneuvers to a higher level than other fighters. Champions focus on landing their blows to the most vulnerable spots, eldritch knights focus on spells, while a battlemaster focuses on honing their technique so that occasionally, they can do something exceptional with the same maneuvers that every fighter uses every day in every combat.

That's all. Trying to say that a Champion doesn't use these techniques because they don't have a die roll for it is also saying a battlemaster can only do these things four times/short rest. It is also like saying everyone politely takes turns moving and swinging their swords. The game system is an abstraction of a continuous and simultaneous fight just broken down into separate and easy to manage pieces.

[Allistar]

I don't think that is the way to look at it at all. Champion fighters execute amazing parries, blocks and ripostes all the time. The entire fight, both the opponents and the characters, are simultaneous. Everyone is moving at the same time, constantly dodging, moving, blocking and parrying. ALL of this action is resolved in the game system by a die roll to hit by both opponents and characters, sometimes with more than one roll if the character is good enough to manage more than one attack.

The GAME breaks it down into initiative, die rolls and movement in order to keep it moving along. The actual action is continuous. Do you really think that the characters each move 30' stop and wait for an opponent or other player to move their 30' and swing their sword? That everyone takes turns swinging their sword? "Your turn, try to hit me now. Nope missed, now I get to try to swing."? This is how the GAME mechanically structure actions that are continuous and happening all the time.

Some of the hits will be due to ripostes, some of the misses may be due to blocks or parries. All of the capabilities are built into the AC and to hit modifiers of each character.

However, the battlemaster has trained and honed their abilities in these maneuvers to a higher level than other fighters. Champions focus on landing their blows to the most vulnerable spots, eldritch knights focus on spells, while a battlemaster focuses on honing their technique so that occasionally, they can do something exceptional with the same maneuvers that every fighter uses every day in every combat.

That's all. Trying to say that a Champion doesn't use these techniques because they don't have a die roll for it is also saying a battlemaster can only do these things four times/short rest. It is also like saying everyone politely takes turns moving and swinging their swords. The game system is an abstraction of a continuous and simultaneous fight just broken down into separate and easy to manage pieces.

Yep, champions are still good fighters and I've always ruled the combat as a combination of footwork, parries, ripostes, deflections all happening at once. I just find it odd that the BM is said to have "honed their skill so much with these techniques" yet they can only do it a few times a day before ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ they get tired or something? Main thing I'm trying to say is that every fighter is basically a different gradient of BM because they would have to do all of these things as well in order to be considered good swordsman and keep themselves alive, and I find it weird that the BM's techniques are what we in the business would call "pretty good fundamentals, combined with a few good techniques" nothing more and nothing less. Sure you can embellish them a bit by describing how quick they are or how they keep point control, or any number of things, but they are basically just another historical fighter and in the context of the game they are considered a lot more extraordinary than they actually were in our own history.

I can excuse the eldritch knight form this because most of the time they're throwing in magic and its difficult to tell how that would effect historical techniques. Along the same lines I can excuse the barbarian, because it's pretty hard to keep a massive axe swung by a massive person in a way that maximizes power from not destroying everything in it's path.

[Grey Watcher]

I guess that's what they're trying to convey, but from my perspective it means something a mite different. The fact that these champions are only able to do minor feints, parries, and cant even riposte correctly really just makes them bad swordsman.

I suppose the solution is to just bring everybody up so that the skill gap seems even more colossal. Perhaps normal fighters are pretty good at these moves, and based on their actions the previous turns they do different attacks/block in a different manner. All the while the BM is over here making split second blocks, using deflective parries in order to turn an opponent's attack into their own, and keeping pressure on the opponent in order to force their movements until they mess up.

Dunno, just seems weird is all

It's admittedly not something that withstands the deepest of scrutiny, much like whenever anyone asks "just what the heck does HP represent in the first place, anyway?" D&D's not the most precise of simulations out there and, even what it does reference seems to have more to do with what you'd see in movies, comic books, and literature than real life. I've only done the very faintest of dabbling in any of this, and I already know that, for example, using a two-handed sword properly requires a lot of precise, fine-motor control (since a mistake is all the harder to correct when the weapon has so much mass). TV Tropes even has a term for swordplay that's intended to look good for the camera rather than be actually useful in a real fight (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flynning).

Heck, even in terms of "riffing off fiction," D&D's pretty selective. Bows, for example, seem to work much more like (cinematic) guns, in that all that matters is how quickly and precisely you can aim. Makes Telemachus feel like a fool for putting all those points into Strength.

Yeah, there's a justification to be made that "the Battle Master is more skilled," but you do still have to break out your suspension of disbelief.

[Allistar]

It's admittedly not something that withstands the deepest of scrutiny, much like whenever anyone asks "just what the heck does HP represent in the first place, anyway?" D&D's not the most precise of simulations out there and, even what it does reference seems to have more to do with what you'd see in movies, comic books, and literature than real life. I've only done the very faintest of dabbling in any of this, and I already know that, for example, using a two-handed sword properly requires a lot of precise, fine-motor control (since a mistake is all the harder to correct when the weapon has so much mass). TV Tropes even has a term for swordplay that's intended to look good for the camera rather than be actually useful in a real fight (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flynning).

Heck, even in terms of "riffing off fiction," D&D's pretty selective. Bows, for example, seem to work much more like (cinematic) guns, in that all that matters is how quickly and precisely you can aim. Makes Telemachus feel like a fool for putting all those points into Strength.

Yeah, there's a justification to be made that "the Battle Master is more skilled," but you do still have to break out your suspension of disbelief.

Yep, suspension of disbelief is definitely needed with this game and for some reason this was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Dunno what else to say.

Archery was another thing I was going to bring up in another thread, but yeah this game treats them more like guns than anything else. In particular the ranges of these weapons is what got me. "I'm in a cave, but my longbow can still shoot 600 ft" because screw firing arcs that would be needed for that type of distance. And don't ever look at the draw weight..... if you don't acknowledge them they don't exist.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yep, suspension of disbelief is definitely needed with this game and for some reason this was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Dunno what else to say.

Archery was another thing I was going to bring up in another thread, but yeah this game treats them more like guns than anything else. In particular the ranges of these weapons is what got me. "I'm in a cave, but my longbow can still shoot 600 ft" because screw firing arcs that would be needed for that type of distance. And don't ever look at the draw weight..... if you don't acknowledge them they don't exist.

It makes those choices in lieu of fun. Similarly, everyone ignores encumbrance, because including it would just make the game less fun.

Things could be correct, OR they could be fun. Which would your table prefer?

Because many people have went down the path of realism, and most of them end up disappointed.

[Frozenstep]

Yep, suspension of disbelief is definitely needed with this game and for some reason this was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Dunno what else to say.

Archery was another thing I was going to bring up in another thread, but yeah this game treats them more like guns than anything else. In particular the ranges of these weapons is what got me. "I'm in a cave, but my longbow can still shoot 600 ft" because screw firing arcs that would be needed for that type of distance. And don't ever look at the draw weight..... if you don't acknowledge them they don't exist.

What you should always keep in mind is that in 5e is that usually, if there's something that could make the game more realistic but would also make it way more complex, the designers decide it isn't worth it. Figuring out firing arcs would mean the designers need to create a whole new set of mechanics for dealing with it, and it would probably either involve complex math that would slow down turns, or be so simplified that it would just be wrong by normal physics and would stand out even more as odd. In trade for adding such a complex new system for players to try to understand and memorize, you get...realism? Maybe a little bit of tactical depth, in very obscure situations (if your cave has a sightline of more than 100 ft, it's probably a big cavern that opens up above their heads. Even hallways usually don't go for all that long).

Having the strength to draw a bow is realistic and not too complex to add, so you could add that to a homebrew game if you wanted. But this has been discussed before, and the 2 main points I remember about it...

1: DnD is inspired by fantasy. An a lot of fantasy archers are portrayed as lithe and agile. So even though that isn't realistic, when people come to the table to play DnD, that's the image they have in their heads, and that's what DnD caters to. So even though that dude with twig-sized arms has no business being able to draw a bow, the movies showed he did and people want to be that dude.

2: Stat requirements can get in the way of roleplay. As is it now, a fighter who is an archer probably chooses dexterity as their highest stat, and maybe con as their second highest, and then likely has one more stat they could get a decent score in and has a variety of options. More strength to be a more well rounded athlete, more wisdom so they maybe take an experienced veteran/mentor role, more intelligence to be a tactician, or more charisma to be a leader. They can, of course, raise those things later with ASI's, but I personally find ASI's are mostly used to max out existing high stats and pick up feats.

Basically, once a class needs 2 stats besides con to function well in combat, that class is sort of pushed into being a certain kind of character, rather than being open and having a choice. You could ignore that your character has 11 wisdom and just play them like they're wise, but then there's dissonance that should be avoided. Now, there are already classes that need 2 stats. That's part of their flavor, it's hard to play a monk who isn't agile and wise, because that's what you'd expect from the class going in. But that's tied to the class and enhances roleplaying.

If you make bows require 2 stats, you'll see a lot of fighters who can come in so many different flavors suddenly forced to only use their good stats on physical attributes, and be left with only a few people who'd have a fighter with more then 12 in any mental stat. For a class meant to be a blank slate warrior, that would be a tragic loss and further cement the fighter as the guy who only pays attention when initiative is rolled because they can't do anything else.

[Max_Killjoy]

I come from a background of HEMA, kendo, and a some formal fencing, and there is a lot of technique that goes into fighting with these weapons. Needless to say after a little milling through the player's handbook and looking at the battlemaster it spoke out to me. However it gave me a puzzling question to consider. If battlemasters are the only ones that get access to parries, repostes, and everything between, what does normal combat look like?

To call back on HEMA a little bit these "combat arts" aren't anything special at all, at least not in the context of historical sword fighting. They treat the ability to parry, or feint as some kind of achievement, but realistically its just another motion and in some weapons just part of their flow. Here's some sabre sparring for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5w2Mh6CyXo
See how many times they catch each other's blades, how they try and trick each other out with false cuts, and how they try and capitalize on any mistake the opponent makes. This is about an average tuesday, but if 5e is to be believed these people have truly transcended beyond us mortals.

I refuse to think that for anyone except the barbarian that combat is basically just swinging a weapon at the opponent until one of you dies, but it kinda seems like that's what is implied. Maybe that's only for weapons you're not proficient in, but then what does proficiency look like? Is it knowing what cuts or thrusts to throw in which situations? Is it knowing how to block/dodge these cuts and thrusts? Sounds a lot like the battlemaster to me....

I don't know, what do you think?

I think that D&D claims to "abstract" all those things into the basic rolls of combat. Until it doesn't abstract them, because it wants to give some Class or Subclass a "special thing".

Making it appear that in order to use a shield like most shield users would use a shield in combat, you need to spend a scare character-build resource on a specific Feat.

Making it appear that only Classes/Subclasses with specific abilities have any ability at all to parry, or dodge, or feint, or riposte, or trip, or bind, or...

[Man_Over_Game]

In particular the ranges of these weapons is what got me. "I'm in a cave, but my longbow can still shoot 600 ft" because screw firing arcs that would be needed for that type of distance.


I think that D&D claims to "abstract" all those things into the basic rolls of combat.


Good point, Max. It's important to note that 600 feet is rarely relevant, and especially not relevant in a cave. I rarely see an encounter that spans greater than 100 feet across in the woods. I don't know of many people who'd have the same distance in a cave.

Which, by the way, is about the distance between the bases in Baseball.

[Yakmala]

There's an old expression. An amateur practices until they get it right. A professional practices until they can't get it wrong.

Battle Masters are the professionals of melee combat, able to call upon their battle maneuvers more reliably and tactically than a typical fighter, who can block and parry and dodge when they need to, but are going more on instinct and self preservation than any real plan.

There's a lot of different ways to define how a Battle Master goes about their business. One Battle Master might be a professional duelist that has honed their abilities in exclusive fencing academies, learning the secrets of their maestros. Another Battle Master might be a street trained thug. For them, maneuvers like Trip, Goading Strike and Feinting Attack are "dirty tricks" they learned from unscrupulous ruffians in dark alleyways. A third Battle Master might be a seasoned veteran soldier or mercenary. He knows his maneuvers simply because he's survived long enough to see it all and now applies the lessons from those many battlefields to his adventuring career.

[Allistar]

What you should always keep in mind is that in 5e is that usually, if there's something that could make the game more realistic but would also make it way more complex, the designers decide it isn't worth it. Figuring out firing arcs would mean the designers need to create a whole new set of mechanics for dealing with it, and it would probably either involve complex math that would slow down turns, or be so simplified that it would just be wrong by normal physics and would stand out even more as odd. In trade for adding such a complex new system for players to try to understand and memorize, you get...realism? Maybe a little bit of tactical depth, in very obscure situations (if your cave has a sightline of more than 100 ft, it's probably a big cavern that opens up above their heads. Even hallways usually don't go for all that long).

Having the strength to draw a bow is realistic and not too complex to add, so you could add that to a homebrew game if you wanted. But this has been discussed before, and the 2 main points I remember about it...

1: DnD is inspired by fantasy. An a lot of fantasy archers are portrayed as lithe and agile. So even though that isn't realistic, when people come to the table to play DnD, that's the image they have in their heads, and that's what DnD caters to. So even though that dude with twig-sized arms has no business being able to draw a bow, the movies showed he did and people want to be that dude.

2: Stat requirements can get in the way of roleplay. As is it now, a fighter who is an archer probably chooses dexterity as their highest stat, and maybe con as their second highest, and then likely has one more stat they could get a decent score in and has a variety of options. More strength to be a more well rounded athlete, more wisdom so they maybe take an experienced veteran/mentor role, more intelligence to be a tactician, or more charisma to be a leader. They can, of course, raise those things later with ASI's, but I personally find ASI's are mostly used to max out existing high stats and pick up feats.

Basically, once a class needs 2 stats besides con to function well in combat, that class is sort of pushed into being a certain kind of character, rather than being open and having a choice. You could ignore that your character has 11 wisdom and just play them like they're wise, but then there's dissonance that should be avoided. Now, there are already classes that need 2 stats. That's part of their flavor, it's hard to play a monk who isn't agile and wise, because that's what you'd expect from the class going in. But that's tied to the class and enhances roleplaying.

If you make bows require 2 stats, you'll see a lot of fighters who can come in so many different flavors suddenly forced to only use their good stats on physical attributes, and be left with only a few people who'd have a fighter with more then 12 in any mental stat. For a class meant to be a blank slate warrior, that would be a tragic loss and further cement the fighter as the guy who only pays attention when initiative is rolled because they can't do anything else.

The one thing that can't be stated enough is the fact that fantasy based in reality makes the fantastical elements a lot more remarkable. Take the witcher's universe for example. There's magic, there's monsters, there's a lot fantasy tropes, but because the world and monsters and believable and also dark as all hell, it really makes everything else pop. The monsters feel threatening because what you see them do to the commoners, and what they can do to you if you're not prepared. It feels real, because a good portion of it is based in reality. As the saying goes, get your facts strait, then distort them as you please.

The debate gets a bit more interesting when it translates into mechanics however. In keeping with the cave example there's a lot that can change how the players go up against the challenge presented by their environment. Archers would have a lot more difficult of a time when trying to snipe down the cave because more than likely there would be tons of objects around for cover, and in order to get more distance they would need a better firing arc. This presents a conundrum for the archer because they need to find a way to overcome the challenge, or change their tactics entirely. On the same note weapons that rely on large motions and a lot of rotational force such as longswords, glaives, and halberds, would be a lot more difficult to use. On the other hand this makes smaller arms like daggers and shortswords a lot more important. Heck you could probably even use a spear since its more about thrusts than big sweeping movements. The point I'm making here is it can change the way that players tackle the situation and provide a new axis of interaction.


Good point, Max. It's important to note that 600 feet is rarely relevant, and especially not relevant in a cave. I rarely see an encounter that spans greater than 100 feet across in the woods. I don't know of many people who'd have the same distance in a cave.

Which, by the way, is about the distance between the bases in Baseball.

Yeah the situation is uncommon, I just kind of went with the go to ranged weapon and the absolute ends of absurdity. The point still remains, it's another weird thing that the 5e system allows for. Now I'm no expert on cave archery but any way you slice it, their effective range would probably be less than their max distance.

[Man_Over_Game]

That is something you could do with certain weapons, using a specific kind of trait:
Arching: In certain circumstances, such as heavy wind or cramped quarters, the ranges for this weapon are halved.

Bows have it, crossbows don't.

[Frozenstep]

The one thing that can't be stated enough is the fact that fantasy based in reality makes the fantastical elements a lot more remarkable. Take the witcher's universe for example. There's magic, there's monsters, there's a lot fantasy tropes, but because the world and monsters and believable and also dark as all hell, it really makes everything else pop. The monsters feel threatening because what you see them do to the commoners, and what they can do to you if you're not prepared. It feels real, because a good portion of it is based in reality. As the saying goes, get your facts strait, then distort them as you please.

The debate gets a bit more interesting when it translates into mechanics however. In keeping with the cave example there's a lot that can change how the players go up against the challenge presented by their environment. Archers would have a lot more difficult of a time when trying to snipe down the cave because more than likely there would be tons of objects around for cover, and in order to get more distance they would need a better firing arc. This presents a conundrum for the archer because they need to find a way to overcome the challenge, or change their tactics entirely. On the same note weapons that rely on large motions and a lot of rotational force such as longswords, glaives, and halberds, would be a lot more difficult to use. On the other hand this makes smaller arms like daggers and shortswords a lot more important. Heck you could probably even use a spear since its more about thrusts than big sweeping movements. The point I'm making here is it can change the way that players tackle the situation and provide a new axis of interaction.

I agree that mundane elements make fantastic elements stand out, and using reality as a reference can work for this. But DnD takes advantage of the fact that the audience doesn't know the reality of some things to simplify rules and make things fall in line with their expectations. A lot of people don't know how much strength archery takes because they've never done it. A lot of people don't think about firing arcs as being too important for archery because they've never done it. Rather than give people a physics lesson, DnD focuses on what they'd rather be doing, playing a character that can shoot arrows at stuff.

Giving players options or putting challenges that prevent a single tactic from working aren't bad things, but anything that makes a player's turn take too long is. Rather than focusing on the math of a firing arc, it's better to just use objects as partial cover and walls and other things between them and their targets, rather then spend time figuring out if the ceiling is high enough and suddenly stopping the session to do a math problem, meanwhile the warlock just uses eldritch blast with no problem.

5e is the whole edition of ruling over rules, that is, the DM is left to figure out special cases rather then the game trying to come up with hundreds of rules to cover every case and still failing leaving DM's paging through the book looking for the DC of that shot and instead just saying "It looks like a difficult shot, through stalagmites and boulders and near that bend...you can make the shot, but at disadvantage." Your ideas about weapons having trouble because of a tight space are interesting, but that's the kind of thing a DM is meant to rule on their own and add as a challenge if they want to.

The point is, if you want to come up with rules to address the problem, you can do it, just make sure they do not interfere with the flow of combat and don't take up any time. If you need to abstract something to the point where it's not super realistic, that's fine, better then having a realistic system that makes the archer's turn take 3 times longer than the warlock's turn.

Also on the weapons with large motions note, remember that you don't occupy all of a 5 ft square, that's just the space you control. If the space is much smaller, you might be subject to the squeezing rules. Something in between is reasonable and would probably be a ruling of your own.

[DarkKnightJin]

I don't think that is the way to look at it at all. Champion fighters execute amazing parries, blocks and ripostes all the time. The entire fight, both the opponents and the characters, are simultaneous. Everyone is moving at the same time, constantly dodging, moving, blocking and parrying. ALL of this action is resolved in the game system by a die roll to hit by both opponents and characters, sometimes with more than one roll if the character is good enough to manage more than one attack.

The GAME breaks it down into initiative, die rolls and movement in order to keep it moving along. The actual action is continuous. Do you really think that the characters each move 30' stop and wait for an opponent or other player to move their 30' and swing their sword? That everyone takes turns swinging their sword? "Your turn, try to hit me now. Nope missed, now I get to try to swing."? This is how the GAME mechanically structure actions that are continuous and happening all the time.

Some of the hits will be due to ripostes, some of the misses may be due to blocks or parries. All of the capabilities are built into the AC and to hit modifiers of each character.

However, the battlemaster has trained and honed their abilities in these maneuvers to a higher level than other fighters. Champions focus on landing their blows to the most vulnerable spots, eldritch knights focus on spells, while a battlemaster focuses on honing their technique so that occasionally, they can do something exceptional with the same maneuvers that every fighter uses every day in every combat.

That's all. Trying to say that a Champion doesn't use these techniques because they don't have a die roll for it is also saying a battlemaster can only do these things four times/short rest. It is also like saying everyone politely takes turns moving and swinging their swords. The game system is an abstraction of a continuous and simultaneous fight just broken down into separate and easy to manage pieces.

On the continuous nature of combat:
It just so happens that my Paladin was part of a game of 'Goat-ball'. Which was pretty much dodgeball, but everybody is standing on logs or rocks.
Part of it was that there were indeed separate 'turns' of sorts, but everybody still moved continuously.
That was maybe most clear in the final turn of the game. Our Wizard had Misty Step'd between my Paladin and the last remaining opponent. The Bard feinted with a throw around 1 side of the Wizard being distracting, thrn passed to my Paladin, who came around the other side of the Wizard and caught the enemy off-guard enough to score the final hit needed to win the match.

[berserker7878]

I come from a background of HEMA, kendo, and a some formal fencing, and there is a lot of technique that goes into fighting with these weapons. Needless to say after a little milling through the player's handbook and looking at the battlemaster it spoke out to me. However it gave me a puzzling question to consider. If battlemasters are the only ones that get access to parries, repostes, and everything between, what does normal combat look like?

To call back on HEMA a little bit these "combat arts" aren't anything special at all, at least not in the context of historical sword fighting. They treat the ability to parry, or feint as some kind of achievement, but realistically its just another motion and in some weapons just part of their flow. Here's some sabre sparring for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5w2Mh6CyXo
See how many times they catch each other's blades, how they try and trick each other out with false cuts, and how they try and capitalize on any mistake the opponent makes. This is about an average tuesday, but if 5e is to be believed these people have truly transcended beyond us mortals.

I refuse to think that for anyone except the barbarian that combat is basically just swinging a weapon at the opponent until one of you dies, but it kinda seems like that's what is implied. Maybe that's only for weapons you're not proficient in, but then what does proficiency look like? Is it knowing what cuts or thrusts to throw in which situations? Is it knowing how to block/dodge these cuts and thrusts? Sounds a lot like the battlemaster to me....

I don't know, what do you think?

hey, i'm a fighter lv 11 barbarian lv1, goliath and brute archetype


if you just look at the archetype, you think it's just a brute cutting mountains and growling.

But I play my brute in a more disciplined way, my goliath has learned to fight with any type of weapon, he is not simply a stone devant that breaks everything, I play loyal good who loves his teammates and who defends his friends, I play sword and shield, 23 AC, and when I use my brutality it is to save lives.

To translate into combat, I attack the strongest possible to finish the fight as quickly as possible, to save my companions, Ankor strikes in a less versatile way than the battlmaster but against when it hits with 3 attacks * 2 with action surge ( 12 + 1d8 weapon + 1d8 weapon capacity + 1d6 brute),
my shield can bring out a soul paladin 1 time per day which gives me +5 CA

have a 1d6 in all saving throws ( brute archetype), in rp it's juste like ' hoo i resist more like usual, beacause my will to saving my friends it's unbreakable'

you see for me there are no labels, just a different way of playing

For me the battlmaster looks like a captain america, strong in all areas but not excellent in one, it's a leader, someone who trusts, a symbol, the battmaster is some effective in all areas, and the brute it's like a living weapon

[MoiMagnus]

I come from a background of HEMA, kendo, and a some formal fencing, and there is a lot of technique that goes into fighting with these weapons. Needless to say after a little milling through the player's handbook and looking at the battlemaster it spoke out to me. However it gave me a puzzling question to consider. If battlemasters are the only ones that get access to parries, repostes, and everything between, what does normal combat look like?

To call back on HEMA a little bit these "combat arts" aren't anything special at all, at least not in the context of historical sword fighting. They treat the ability to parry, or feint as some kind of achievement, but realistically its just another motion and in some weapons just part of their flow. Here's some sabre sparring for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5w2Mh6CyXo
See how many times they catch each other's blades, how they try and trick each other out with false cuts, and how they try and capitalize on any mistake the opponent makes. This is about an average tuesday, but if 5e is to be believed these people have truly transcended beyond us mortals.

I refuse to think that for anyone except the barbarian that combat is basically just swinging a weapon at the opponent until one of you dies, but it kinda seems like that's what is implied. Maybe that's only for weapons you're not proficient in, but then what does proficiency look like? Is it knowing what cuts or thrusts to throw in which situations? Is it knowing how to block/dodge these cuts and thrusts? Sounds a lot like the battlemaster to me....

I don't know, what do you think?

Parry, feint and all are included in "rolling the dice for attack" as everyone do them. While it isn't canon, I interpret most class ability as being superhuman (compared to real world capacities).

So for me, the manoeuvre "Parry" is "superhuman speed that allow to parry", or "dumb luck / fate manipulation that allow to parry", or "implicit divination that allow to parry", or "superhuman anticipation of the opponent's moves that allow to parry". (Whatever fit best to the PC's personality).