Maneuvers for all martial classes

[Trask]

My players and I are looking to add some more tactical depth to the martial classes, and I thought a relatively easy solution presented itself readily, making the system peculiar to the battlemaster archetype, superiority dice and maneuvers, common to the four martial classes and their subclasses (Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins.)

First off, give me any doubts or critiques of the idea, but also I'd like some help with the implementation. Should all classes follow the standard Battlemaster progression? Should the different classes progress at different rates? I came across this fellow's work https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LQjbFRpqkU-6YrcMqbc and he does the following Which seems multi-class friendly

Martial level. You determine your character's martial level by adding together all your levels in the fighter class, half your levels (rounded down) in the barbarian and rogue classes, and a third of your level in the paladin and ranger classes.

And lastly, should you keep or remove the damage done as part of the maneuver? Is it a problem for all martial classes to have a damage boost?

Please tell me your thoughts

[Lupine]

common to the four martial classes and their subclasses (Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, and Paladins.)

First off, rangers need to be in that list.

Second, the framework for this has already been done. See the unearthed arcana “class features and varients.” (Tldr: fighters can gain a maneuver as a fighting style, if memory serves)

Now, I will give my opinion on this: be careful. This could make battlemaster obsolete.
Primarily, those choices exist already (shove, for example.), but they are.... not great. For the most part, you’d do better to just bash the enemy twice, rather than trip him, and then be more likely to bash him (unless you’re a fighter 5/rogue x multiclass) what the battle master does is allow them to be more viable, mostly by dealing damage.

I’m away from book right now, but I recall a feat that allows access to the battlemaster maneuvers, but gives you a d6 superiority die, rather than the battlemaster’s d8

Already in terms of progression, the next logical step would be a superiority die of d4, for no skill, no class investment. This is... alright, I guess? I personally wouldn’t find it being significant all that often, but it could be useful.

Anyway, those are my jumbled and uncoordinated thoughts on this (I started off being against, and now I’m unconvinced.) hope they can be of service

[Trask]

First off, rangers need to be in that list.
Absolutely, the Ranger slipped by mind but I edited it in there. Perhaps the Monk also? I'm more uncertain on that class.


Now, I will give my opinion on this: be careful. This could make battlemaster obsolete.
I'm OK with this. The battlemaster exists to scratch a tactical itch without making it a universal feature of martial classes, if I universalize those abilities the battlemaster doesnt need to exist anymore, and I dont think anyone would miss it too much.



I’m away from book right now, but I recall a feat that allows access to the battlemaster maneuvers, but gives you a d6 superiority die, rather than the battlemaster’s d8

Already in terms of progression, the next logical step would be a superiority die of d4, for no skill, no class investment. This is... alright, I guess? I personally wouldn’t find it being significant all that often, but it could be useful.

I gather you're suggesting that the three "tiers" of martial classes be separated into using a d8, d6, and d4 for their maneuvers respectively? This doesnt seem bad but I question the need to separate damage and simply limit frequency of use instead. The point of this change wouldnt be focused on the increased damage anyways (although that is a noted plus and perhaps one martial classes also need) rather to share the expanded options that maneuvers provide like forced movement, tripping, lockdown, frightening, ect.

[Man_Over_Game]

We should assume most Martial classes are equally as powerful as most Magical classes, so providing any straight power creep to the Martials will result in then being strictly better than mages.

So if you're going to implement something like this, it should likely replace something they can already do or would have already done. For reference, a standard maneuver is roughly worth the same amount as a single attack.

For example:
Replace Action Surge with a Superiority Die, gaining 1 die every time you get the Extra Attack feature.
All classes can do a maneuver, but doing so afflicts you with Exhaustion. This means you can roughly afford to do one once per day.
Maneuvers performed without a Superiority Die instead deal half damage on your damage and then use a 1d6 for the Superiority Die. You can only use a maneuver this way if it would have a damage roll.
Upgrade the Martial Adept feat to use a 1d4, refreshes on a Short Rest.

[djreynolds]

D&D and 5E... the classes are never equal.

We try to tweak them and take this or that feat, but at the end of the day.... the classes are not equal in terms of "power"

You select a class and archetype and even multiclass because of a concept...

You see the picture of the dark elf rogue in the PHB... and she looks pretty bad***.

Many of classes overlap with abilities of others.

But I'm not going to be the jerk that says... well multiclass...

IMO, I don't see why a paladin couldn't just have a smite that works like menacing. I might allow a paladin to maybe use a spell slot for a "holy" maneuver.

Maybe a barbarian when they rage, could instead use a second use of rage and now their attacks can trip, or fear, or shove.

Perhaps a rogue, if within range of two foes could split the damage of their sneak attack between the two. You just watched me stab your friend in the hamstring and got caught watching the paint dry.... here is a stab in the face.

But I think it has to cost something. A smite is basically a 2d8 attack, but you are sacrificing it to disarm instead... you still get a 1d8 in damage.

How many times has rogue at higher level.... dropped 40 damage on a sneak attack.... when they only need 10 to finish off the enemy... well instead they could split that damage between to foes.... maybe even three at higher levels

[intregus]

We should assume most Martial classes are equally as powerful as most Magical classes, so providing any straight power creep to the Martials will result in then being strictly better than mages.



I don't think we should assume that martial are equal to mages....I think we need to determine whether or not this true before giving martial a boost. My guess is that martials are underpowered vs mages in tiers 3 &4 and maybe even late tier 2

[Dienekes]

I’ve already essentially done this up to level 10 for each class.

From my own experiences I’d say:

-My players love it

-Be careful of overlapping abilities, a few classes, subclasses, and especially feats gain different abilities that take up the same conceptual space as certain maneuvers. Doing this right will take a larger rework than you probably think.

-Ranger got reworked essentially to allow them to choose spells or maneuvers. My version is possibly too strong at lower levels but my Ranger player loves it. And at 6 currently the Fighter and Ranger seem equal.

-I did not give the Paladin maneuvers, it was too hard to balance spells and maneuvers, and letting the Paladin choose to pick one or the other left the Maneuver Paladin with little conceptual space from a fighter.

-Battlemaster subclass got removed, it really doesn’t have much point anymore

-Maneuver list needed to be expanded and separated among classes or everyone starts to feel the same. I’ve essentially doubled the Maneuver list and cordoned off different maneuvers between classes and subclasses.

[intregus]

Also maybe make maneuvers available to pact of the blade warlocks through an invocation?

[djreynolds]

Its tough because the battlemaster is a very popular archetype.

Its essentially "martial" spells.

I'm just afraid of gimping the fighter, which is very popular.... in most play

And some might say... just dip three level of battlemaster… and the cost is you don't get your capstone feature

Its tough because

1.... is the game gonna fall apart... probably not.

2.... so the battlemaster goes the way of the dinosaur

3... its not any cheesier than the hex blades using 1 stat

4... IMO the fighter should have been a base class and paladin/ranger/barbarian as its archetypes

But I'm curious to it play out

[Trask]

We should assume most Martial classes are equally as powerful as most Magical classes, so providing any straight power creep to the Martials will result in then being strictly better than mages.

My own experience doesn't agree with this. I find that in later tiers, warrior classes see a gradual and continuous decline in impact on the shape of battle compared to mage classes unless given more magic items than mages.


I don't think we should assume that martial are equal to mages....I think we need to determine whether or not this true before giving martial a boost. My guess is that martials are underpowered vs mages in tiers 3 &4 and maybe even late tier 2

Integrus' opinion also reflects my own based on my play experience.


I’ve already essentially done this up to level 10 for each class.

From my own experiences I’d say:

-My players love it

-Be careful of overlapping abilities, a few classes, subclasses, and especially feats gain different abilities that take up the same conceptual space as certain maneuvers. Doing this right will take a larger rework than you probably think.

-Ranger got reworked essentially to allow them to choose spells or maneuvers. My version is possibly too strong at lower levels but my Ranger player loves it. And at 6 currently the Fighter and Ranger seem equal.

-I did not give the Paladin maneuvers, it was too hard to balance spells and maneuvers, and letting the Paladin choose to pick one or the other left the Maneuver Paladin with little conceptual space from a fighter.

I was considering that this would be a problem as well. Having maneuvers and spells, many of which enhance combat abilities, seemed like a class that would feel overstuffed with features at best, and overpowered at worst. But then what about the Eldritch Knight? Did you find that to be problematic as well?


Maneuver list needed to be expanded and separated among classes or everyone starts to feel the same. I’ve essentially doubled the Maneuver list and cordoned off different maneuvers between classes and subclasses.
This sounds good in theory but it also seems like it would be a lot of work and a lot of artificial differences. Strength Fighters and Barbarians and Dexterity Fighters and Rogues aren't SO different, there doesn't seem to be that much design space to work with. But I think you are right in some areas, like a Rogue shouldn't have access to Goading Attack.



Alternatively...what if we went a little looser with it and allowed classes with superiority die to spend one and describe what they want to happen, and the DM simply adjudicates the proper saving throw and use of the die. It even has some flexibility in that you could require more die be spent the more difficult the DM decides the action is. This might be a little too loose for the tastes of some, but I see some appeal to the idea of a more free-flowing system to perform maneuvers.

[Lupine]

We should assume most Martial classes are equally as powerful as most Magical classes, so providing any straight power creep to the Martials will result in then being strictly better than mages.

So if you're going to implement something like this, it should likely replace something they can already do or would have already done. For reference, a standard maneuver is roughly worth the same amount as a single attack.

For example:
Replace Action Surge with a Superiority Die, gaining 1 die every time you get the Extra Attack feature.
All classes can do a maneuver, but doing so afflicts you with Exhaustion. This means you can roughly afford to do one once per day.
Maneuvers performed without a Superiority Die instead deal half damage on your damage and then use a 1d6 for the Superiority Die. You can only use a maneuver this way if it would have a damage roll.
Upgrade the Martial Adept feat to use a 1d4, refreshes on a Short Rest.

MOG —against my better judgement— I’m going to disagree with you here.
First, I think your premise that the classes are equal is wrong. The martial classes are in no way equal to the magical ones. Just look at damages for spells/spell effects, vs martial damage, especially in light of what conditions are needed to supply those effects.

Second, I just don’t like your example system. I can’t really come up with a solid reason why, but it just doesn’t feel like it would be fun to play.

[Dienekes]

Its tough because the battlemaster is a very popular archetype.

Its essentially "martial" spells.

I'm just afraid of gimping the fighter, which is very popular.... in most play

Well yeah, here's the thing. Battlemaster is a popular archetype because it encapsulates the design space for "entirely mundane character that is mechanically not simple." While the Champion is "entirely mundane character that is simple." So every type of mundane warrior can be implemented by either Champion or Battlemaster based entirely on whether or not you want to think about Superiority Dice or not. And, well, a lot of people want to play a mechanically engaging fighter.

Removing the Battlemaster, or more accurately, making everyone the Battlemaster actually opens up design space for Fighter subclasses. Because right now subclasses like Chevalier or Samurai have to compete with Battlemaster just to get players who want to play knights and samurai.

Mind you, that's really an entirely different discussion to have.

As to weakening Fighters by comparison, that is a potential problem. Which is part of why I am partial to giving different classes different maneuver lists, while the Fighter just has access to all maneuvers. I've also made Fighters the best with maneuvers, where they have larger Superiority Dice pools and use larger dice. It is still a differentiation of power, but I'm going to be honest here I don't think it's really as bad as a lot of people think. Because, in all honesty, Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Rogues they're all -roughly- equally effective in combat. More or less. At least they're able to play on the same field. Fighters were never really the masters of combat, and giving other classes more options doesn't really hurt them.

A much bigger problem is really that Fighters still don't have much to do outside of combat. And the Maneuver system doesn't really effect that.



I was considering that this would be a problem as well. Having maneuvers and spells, many of which enhance combat abilities, seemed like a class that would feel overstuffed with features at best, and overpowered at worst. But then what about the Eldritch Knight? Did you find that to be problematic as well?

Well truth be told, no one has played EK at my table. However, I don't think it's as bad here, mostly because EK are kind of an opt-in situation. And the EKs spells (as far as i'm aware, again I've never seen an EK played firsthand" tend to be more about buffing themselves than in casually using control spells. Correct me if I'm wrong of course. There might be some overlap in reactive defensive abilities, but I think that actually balances them out.

This is contrasted with Paladin, which always has spells. Some of those spells have decent utiltiy, and I have no idea how to even try to balance Superiority Dice with Smite. That is scary.


This sounds good in theory but it also seems like it would be a lot of work and a lot of artificial differences. Strength Fighters and Barbarians and Dexterity Fighters and Rogues aren't SO different, there doesn't seem to be that much design space to work with. But I think you are right in some areas, like a Rogue shouldn't have access to Goading Attack.

It was more to make certain that the Strength Barbarian feels very distinct from the Dexterity Rogue. Perfectly honest, not all Maneuvers are created equal, and if every class is throwing around the same handful then I think it's a problem, not insurmountable of course. But the way I decided to deal with it was Maneuver Lists. I figure if it works for spell casters, might as well work for me.



Alternatively...what if we went a little looser with it and allowed classes with superiority die to spend one and describe what they want to happen, and the DM simply adjudicates the proper saving throw and use of the die. It even has some flexibility in that you could require more die be spent the more difficult the DM decides the action is. This might be a little too loose for the tastes of some, but I see some appeal to the idea of a more free-flowing system to perform maneuvers.

This is very good for loose systems if we have a bit of GM guidelines. And is pretty much how the the game handles skills. But it would be a big glaringly different for combat. D&D has historically been incredibly crunchy with it's combat.

[Trask]

This is very good for loose systems if we have a bit of GM guidelines. And is pretty much how the the game handles skills. But it would be a big glaringly different for combat. D&D has historically been incredibly crunchy with it's combat.
You're right, it does feel glaringly out of place if I conceptualize it at the table, that's probably enough to scrap the idea.

Also, in your implementation do you have the players pick the maneuvers they know or do you just have a class list of maneuvers that they can use?

[Dienekes]

You're right, it does feel glaringly out of place if I conceptualize it at the table, that's probably enough to scrap the idea.

Also, in your implementation do you have the players pick the maneuvers they know or do you just have a class list of maneuvers that they can use?

They pick from a list. So, for example, Barbarians get their first Maneuver at level 2. They have a list of around 12 maneuvers, they can pick 1 of them. Every 3-ish levels they can pick another. They start with 1 Superiority Die, gaining an additional at 5th and 8th.

To be completely honest, it would probably not be gamebreaking at all to give everyone access to their entire list. There’s really no overpowered combo that can be pulled off that way. Or at least not one I’ve seen, though I bet there’s some weird multiclass nonsense. That said, as I’ve mentioned I have a much bigger list of maneuvers than the base game, and since I am not limited by subclass levels I can drip them in through the class to get a nice progression. And it’s just easier to my players stuck with their weird eternally tinkering GM, they don’t have to memorize 12 to 23 abilities all at first or second level.

[CheddarChampion]

OP, have you considered the variant rules in the DMG? (Around page 271 or so)

[opaopajr]

I would prefer most maneuvers were attemptable to all, perhaps with a penalty to the attempt (or some other cost) -- with most of the Superiority Die value removed. Part of me thinks a Prof Bonus penalty sounds good, which would make Weapon Proficiency good, but then it makes higher levels less adept which is weird. It would require tinkering, but is totally allowable and encouraged by the Improvise an Action sidebar. :smallsmile:

Anyway, that's just me trying to old school cool things with penalty mods. :smalltongue:

:smallcool: Easiest way would be to offer everyone all BM Maneuvers (minus Superior Dice rolls) and "Usage per Short Rest" equal to Proficiency Bonus. So a Tier 1 PC would have 2 uses per SR, and can use any Maneuver. The DC is easy to derive as usual, 8+PB+MOD.

I am definitely more of the Penalty School vs. Commodity School of design. Penalty often favors already known proficiencies, whereas commodities creates another economy to keep track of. Personal preference, though.:smallamused:

I would not worry much about spellcasters v. martials here because spellcasters will eventually get analysis paralysis: too many options syndrome. Martials are helped considerably and these Maneuvers gives some blueprint on where to add costs for future Improvised Actions (see: Reaction, Bonus Action, etc.). And most of the Maneuvers are restricted by the clauses "weapon atk" etc.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't think we should assume that martial are equal to mages....I think we need to determine whether or not this true before giving martial a boost. My guess is that martials are underpowered vs mages in tiers 3 &4 and maybe even late tier 2

My own experience doesn't agree with this. I find that in later tiers, warrior classes see a gradual and continuous decline in impact on the shape of battle compared to mage classes unless given more magic items than mages.



Integrus' opinion also reflects my own based on my play experience.


MOG —against my better judgement— I’m going to disagree with you here.
First, I think your premise that the classes are equal is wrong. The martial classes are in no way equal to the magical ones. Just look at damages for spells/spell effects, vs martial damage, especially in light of what conditions are needed to supply those effects.

Second, I just don’t like your example system. I can’t really come up with a solid reason why, but it just doesn’t feel like it would be fun to play.

I agree. I don't think that Martials are equally as valuable as casters. However, that is a much bigger problem to understand and tackle than "Allow special attacks with drawbacks".

Rather than derail the thread into a long discussion over what is or isn't fair in a cooperative game with strict mechanics, I think the safest solution is to assume that everything is "perfect", so we're just trying to introduce more versatility into an already "perfect" system rather than trying to randomly create a new untested system on top of a complex and imperfect one and hope we get everything just right.

There's the ideal solution, of creating a perfectly balanced ecosystem of classes that each have their own unique niche that has an equal amount of dependency on their weaknesses and strengths, while incorporating the new Maneuver mechanics.

And then there's the realistic solution, where we simply take the existing system and see how we could fit the Maneuvers in while keeping things mostly the same.

If we could quantify things like Non-combat value, what value each Ability Check DC Difficulty should have (10-25), and how valuable consistency should be vs. burst power (that is, how many combat rounds should a Wizard be in before he starts dealing less damage than the Rogue), I'd be on board for creating an Ideal solution, but that's a lot of work, and right now, we got nadda. We don't even have a place to start.

Trying to generate an ideal solution (of solving balance by implementing a maneuver mechanic) would be much like trying to go to target practice while blindfolded. We don't know where to aim, how to hit it, and we don't know if we even hit the target until after it's done. My realistic solution isn't ideal, but at least we know what we're aiming for.

[GrumpyHobbit]

just throwing this in here for Inspiration

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/

[Man_Over_Game]

just throwing this in here for Inspiration

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/

Been working on a 5e version of something similar.

Fighters get Superiority Dice and Manuevers instead of Action Surge.

Barbarians get a change to Rage that grants them THP when they lose HP that would normally be mitigated, and they spend that THP as extra damage on their next attack. To compensate, health Regen when you're below 50% equal to your Barb level when you're NOT raging, as well as Rage becoming a Short Rest mechanic.

Wild Shape forms now have 50% HP, but you have Resistance to all damage until your turn when it's broken by damage, and you have expertise on all skills you'd gain from your Wildshape form.

Rogues now treat Sneak Attack as a status debuff instead of a damage effect, allowing greater negative effects when the enemy is already afflicted (to Blind an enemy, they must already be Deafened. To Deafen an enemy, they must be Prone, etc.).

Stuff that makes the game a little more complex, but still roughly maintaining balance. Still a work in progress.

[stoutstien]

Been working on a 5e version of something similar.

Fighters get Superiority Dice and Manuevers instead of Action Surge.

Barbarians get a change to Rage that grants them THP when they lose HP that would normally be mitigated, and they spend that THP as extra damage on their next attack. To compensate, health Regen when you're below 50% equal to your Barb level when you're NOT raging, as well as Rage becoming a Short Rest mechanic.

Wild Shape forms now have 50% HP, but you have Resistance to all damage until your turn when it's broken by damage, and you have expertise on all skills you'd gain from your Wildshape form.

Rogues now treat Sneak Attack as a status debuff instead of a damage effect, allowing greater negative effects when the enemy is already afflicted (to Blind an enemy, they must already be Deafened. To Deafen an enemy, they must be Prone, etc.).

Stuff that makes the game a little more complex, but still roughly maintaining balance. Still a work in progress.

I've been working on something alone the same lines.
Been playing with the idea that the HP for druid's wild shapes are THP.

How does the sneak attack work with NPCs that have those status immunities.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've been working on something alone the same lines.
Been playing with the idea that the HP for druid's wild shapes are THP.

How does the sneak attack work with NPCs that have those status immunities.

They don't necessarily require all of the status effects before it, just the previous stage.

For example, you can paralyze a blind person, and you can blind a deaf person. If they're immune to being Deafened, you can still paralyze them if you can find a way to make them blind.