Allowing anyone to use Battlemaster Maneuvers by expending hit dice?

[Man_Over_Game]

"You may expend a Hit Die to use one of the Battlemaster Maneuvers, using half of the roll of the Hit Die (rounded down) as the result of your Superiority Die."

Useless? Overpowered? It's hard to say for me. Would you allow this at your table?

[RSP]

I wouldn’t allow it due to stepping on the BM’s toes: why would anyone now be a BM?

[Man_Over_Game]

I wouldn’t allow it due to stepping on the BM’s toes: why would anyone now be a BM?

Because the BM does it better. They can use those maneuvers much more often, retaining their Hit Dice (for more maneuvers or health), and they do so more effectively.

Clerics can attack, so why would anyone play a Fighter?

Eldritch Knights can cast Wizard spells, so why would anyone play a Wizard?

[Dork_Forge]

I wouldn't allow it personally, I think it steps on their toes a lot more than the fighting style approach we saw in the Class Variants UA. Maybe make the Martial Adept feat more appealing?

[RSP]

Because the BM does it better. They can use those maneuvers much more often, retaining their Hit Dice (for more maneuvers or health), and they do so more effectively.

Clerics can attack, so why would anyone play a Fighter?

Eldritch Knights can cast Wizard spells, so why would anyone play a Wizard?

I can get a full other subclass and do what the BM does. Or I can just do what a BM does. One of those options is a lot more limiting than the other.

[Addaran]

At first i though it was only for Battlemasters, so i though it was a great idea. Let them do more maneuvers at the cost of HD.

I wouldn't just give it to all either.

However, we already have example of maneuvers vs normal action. Trip, disarm, intimidate. The difference is that BM do them as part of an attack instead of an action and they add their maneuver dice to damage. So i'd probably allow any of the maneuvers that are as part of an attack to be used as an action, without the attack. So feinting, goading and maneuvering.

[Man_Over_Game]

I can get a full other subclass and do what the BM does. Or I can just do what a BM does. One of those options is a lot more limiting than the other.

You can also take VHuman and your level 4 ASI for martial adept for almost the same thing.

[Dork_Forge]

You can also take VHuman and your level 4 ASI for martial adept for almost the same thing.

You can only take Martial Adept once and an ASI is a much higher cost than just being able to do it for free. Depending on party and build composition the loss of a few hit die might not even matter (Healing Spirit, Song of Rest, Durable etc.), whilst adding a consider bump in utility and damage.

[EggKookoo]

"You may expend a Hit Die to use one of the Battlemaster Maneuvers, using half of the roll of the Hit Die (rounded down) as the result of your Superiority Die."

Useless? Overpowered? It's hard to say for me. Would you allow this at your table?

Eh. Giving a non-fighter a fighter feature at a cost isn't so bad. Not sure how I feel about giving a non-fighter a fighter subclass feature.

Would you consider making it dependent on the BM being present? Thematically it would be like the non-fighter seeing the BM pull off a stunt (even if it happened yesterday) and going "I'ma do that too!" And then later realizing they pulled a muscle...

[stoutstien]

"You may expend a Hit Die to use one of the Battlemaster Maneuvers, using half of the roll of the Hit Die (rounded down) as the result of your Superiority Die."

Useless? Overpowered? It's hard to say for me. Would you allow this at your table?

I would allow it with a limit of X times per LR equal to CON modifier.
It would replace second wind. I'm generally a fan of alternative class features to allow players to build what they vision within reason without dips.

[RSP]

You can also take VHuman and your level 4 ASI for martial adept for almost the same thing.

So, alter the RAW so you can take the same feat twice, spend your choice of race and subsequent feat, and your first ASI, for a total of 4 choices of BM maneuvers that you can use 2x/SR; equals for free using HD to replicate (I’m assuming any) BM maneuvers.

First, if that’s your idea of “almost the same thing”, you should revisit how you’re drawing your comparisons.

Second, no, it’s not.

And again, if I can do all the BM maneuvers for free, why would I ever play a BM? A rogue, for instance, is much better using Riposte for off-turn SA. Compare that to a BM that simply gets to do his normal schtick a few extra times a day: one benefits a lot more than the other.

[Democratus]

I don't think it would be a great idea at my table.

Classes should be more unique, not less. There is already too much 'sloshing' between classes as it is.

[RSP]

I will add, it is a better idea if you either eliminate the BM from play, or make it BM only.

I equate this to DMs who allow Sleight of Hand or Stealth checks to duplicate Subtle Spell: doing so if you don’t have a Sorc at the table is less of a big deal. But if you have a Sorc, they’re suddenly wondering why they would ever pick Subtle Spell (or hating the fact they did). This lessens the power of the Sorc class by taking away one of their best unique abilities (and the Sorc certainly doesn’t need powers removed) and granting it to any spellcaster.

[Daphne]

I'd not allow this, maneuvers are a Battle Master thing.

[Monster Manuel]

I love this as a perk for the BM themselves, but not for any character to do.

It lets the BM do their thing more than a handful of times per short rest. On the other hand, I rarely see all HD being used during rests, there are almost always HD lying around untouched, so it's kind of a freebie; spend this resource you're not using to get access to more of this other resource you are using. If I was to implement this, I might be a little more punishing on the cost, maybe 2HD per use, rather than 1:1.

I guess the question is; what is this change meant to achieve? Is this meant to encourage players to be more dynamic in-combat by giving them cooler options than the standard attack/grapple/dodge/push? If that's the case, maybe a select sub-group of BM-like abilities that you could spend HD to activate might be better than giving straight-up access to the core BM feature. Something like an "improved dodge" than anyone could use as a reaction, but cost a HD.



Would you consider making it dependent on the BM being present? Thematically it would be like the non-fighter seeing the BM pull off a stunt (even if it happened yesterday) and going "I'ma do that too!" And then later realizing they pulled a muscle...

I kind of love this too, but maybe as a specific BM maneuver? You spend a superiority die, and allow another character access to your manuever until the end of the round. They may pay the superiority die cost with a HD, if they have none of their own? Has a pretty Warlord-ey feel to it, that I like.

[EggKookoo]

I kind of love this too, but maybe as a specific BM maneuver? You spend a superiority die, and allow another character access to your manuever until the end of the round. They may pay the superiority die cost with a HD, if they have none of their own? Has a pretty Warlord-ey feel to it, that I like.

My concern would be about players harassing the BM to given them a maneuver. Maybe that's unwarranted but I just wanted to nip it in the bud.

[Contrast]

I will add, it is a better idea if you either eliminate the BM from play, or make it BM only.

I equate this to DMs who allow Sleight of Hand or Stealth checks to duplicate Subtle Spell: doing so if you don’t have a Sorc at the table is less of a big deal. But if you have a Sorc, they’re suddenly wondering why they would ever pick Subtle Spell (or hating the fact they did). This lessens the power of the Sorc class by taking away one of their best unique abilities (and the Sorc certainly doesn’t need powers removed) and granting it to any spellcaster.

Just to say while this is true there are potential knock on impacts to be wary of.

Say you allow using Sleight of Hand in one campaign because there no sorc. Next campaign someone wants to be one so you don't allow it - except now the entire table just feels like you've nerfed them because one person wanted to be a sorc (and they might not even want Subtle spell).

Say you let everyone use Ki abilities in one campaign. The next campaign they may out of hand discard monks as a potential choice without even asking because why bother when they get that stuff for free anyway.

Personally if you want to allow this I'd suggest making it a magic item of some variety or create a separate list of moves which are worse than the BM ones.

[RSP]

Just to say while this is true there are potential knock on impacts to be wary of.

Say you allow using Sleight of Hand in one campaign because there no sorc. Next campaign someone wants to be one so you don't allow it - except now the entire table just feels like you've nerfed them because one person wanted to be a sorc (and they might not even want Subtle spell).

Say you let everyone use Ki abilities in one campaign. The next campaign they may out of hand discard monks as a potential choice without even asking because why bother when they get that stuff for free anyway.

Personally if you want to allow this I'd suggest making it a magic item of some variety or create a separate list of moves which are worse than the BM ones.

I wasn’t arguing for allowing this (quite the opposite). Just pointing out that, when assessing whether to allow this stuff, it might seem less of an issue when there’s no current PCs who already have those abilities.

[Man_Over_Game]

I just figured it'd be a good idea since:

Hit Dice are an often untapped resource.
Hit Dice only refresh up to 50% of their maximum per day (so you'd gain 2 back per day as a level 4)
Hit Dice provide smaller bonuses than the Battlemaster.
Basic attacks often don't have any kind of control effect, now they do.
The bonus damage and utility provided by the Hit Dice maneuver should be worth less than the Hit Die + Con healing you would have received


For reference, a Fighter should be expected to heal about 10 HP from a Hit Die, where the same Hit Die would only offer about a +3 damage bonus on the maneuver that generally would have used an attack you were already making. This would mean that whatever bonus the maneuver would be granting you, it'd need to be worth losing 7 HP for.

Another point of concern is Warlocks vs. Full Casters. Short Rest recharging has value.

Mostly, though, I just wanted martial combat to be a bit more dynamic, and the Battlemaster maneuvers seemed a good way of doing that. But maybe it's best to go back to the drawing board for now.

[RSP]

Hit Dice provide smaller bonuses than the

Not all maneuvers benefit the same from the die roll. If this is what you’re banking on as a restriction, I’d suggest limiting the maneuvers that are available with this mechanic. Again, getting half die rolled on a Riposte doesn’t matter to a Rogue who gets a full second use of SA in a round, or a Paladin getting anothe Smite off.

As an alternative, have you thought about adjusting the Martial Adept feat to include this ability? So you get to select 2 maneuvers, the 1x/SR use, them additional uses at half die with sacrificing a HD (full dice to BMs)

This would at least not open it to every character, and require getting a feat to get it, though would still be very powerful for certain builds (like the aforementioned Rogue).

[micahaphone]

I would tentatively try this as added onto the Martial Adept feat, as that feat's nigh worthless for anyone who isn't already a battlemaster fighter.

This would be very powerful on a barbarian, so I feel like it'd be worth a feat, worth taking compared to GWM or PAM.


------------

I seem to remember some designer noting that they intentionally did not allow for any other use of hit die other than healing during short rests, but I don't remember why.

[Man_Over_Game]

Not all maneuvers benefit the same from the die roll. If this is what you’re banking on as a restriction, I’d suggest limiting the maneuvers that are available with this mechanic. Again, getting half die rolled on a Riposte doesn’t matter to a Rogue who gets a full second use of SA in a round, or a Paladin getting anothe Smite off.

As an alternative, have you thought about adjusting the Martial Adept feat to include this ability? So you get to select 2 maneuvers, the 1x/SR use, them additional uses at half die with sacrificing a HD (full dice to BMs)

This would at least not open it to every character, and require getting a feat to get it, though would still be very powerful for certain builds (like the aforementioned Rogue).


I would tentatively try this as added onto the Martial Adept feat, as that feat's nigh worthless for anyone who isn't already a battlemaster fighter.

This would be very powerful on a barbarian, so I feel like it'd be worth a feat, worth taking compared to GWM or PAM.


------------

I seem to remember some designer noting that they intentionally did not allow for any other use of hit die other than healing during short rests, but I don't remember why.
Maybe shifting it onto the Martial Adept feat is the way to go.

One of the major things I was going for was to open up more versatility for martial characters, while not encouraging any kind of power creep. Comparing the value of the HP gain of the Hit Die to the damage gain from the maneuver, I thought they were roughly even, so I thought adding this option wouldn't make anything more powerful, just more versatile.
The problem with using the Martial Adept feat is that I want to encourage players to do more signature moves and more manipulation of the battlefield, and requiring a character cost will dramatically cut down on how often it's used. I don't want them to be stronger, just cooler and more interactive between one another.

I suppose a good balance is specifying "During your turn", which removes Riposte (which is probably the most powerful of the maneuvers), but I'll need to double check to ensure there isn't anything else that gets screwed up with doing that.

[jmartkdr]

One option: allow the maneuver (really any maneuver) instead of an attack. So you attempt to disarm OR try to deal damage. (This might not even have a cost)

Unless you're a Battlemaster. Then you don't have to pick (x time per short rest).

[Man_Over_Game]

One option: allow the maneuver (really any maneuver) instead of an attack. So you attempt to disarm OR try to deal damage. (This might not even have a cost)

Unless you're a Battlemaster. Then you don't have to pick (x time per short rest).

That's not a terrible idea, but almost all of them use an attack. There's only about 30% that don't use an attack, and some even require an attack (like precision or lunging attack).



Hmm... That does give me an idea, though. Just make the attack worse, so that the focus is on the utility and not raw damage.

What if: "Any saving throw or attack that is made with or from the Hit Dice maneuver doesn't get your proficiency"?

This would mean that the attack-oriented maneuvers would be worth less than the defensive ones, and it'd scale down as the number of Hit Dice you gained went up.

[Joe the Rat]

And here I'm thinking "Let the Battle Master / Adept spend a Hit Die to do a maneuver (using the normal superiority die)" - extending the immediate resource pool by burning through the day's vitality.

There's probably an entire algebra of hit die for resources that could be done for classes.

[RSP]

That's not a terrible idea, but almost all of them use an attack. There's only about 30% that don't use an attack.

Not sure if it solves the perceived problem, but why not just try the optional DMG rules for Disarm? Essentially the same as grapple and shove.

There’s already “non-Attack” versions for most of the maneuvers: Trip Attack (Shove), Pushing Attack (Shove), Distracting (Help Action), Evasive Footwork (Dodge), Goading Attack (Cha check with Persuasion as an Action), Menacing Attack (Cha check with Intimidate), and Disarming Attack (using DMG optional rules).

All the others really should just be for the BM (or Martial Adept).

[Chronos]

Even if you want to open up maneuvers to others, or to give more to battlemasters, this just feels like the wrong way to do it. That's not what HD are. Some way of using HD to gain temporary hit points, or to shake off conditions? Sure, that sounds reasonable (at least, thematically): HD are about patching yourself back together and staying alive. But using a resource that's supposed to be keeping you alive, to instead attack more effectively? Eh, maybe if you're some sort of blood mage or undead or something?

[Man_Over_Game]

Not sure if it solves the perceived problem, but why not just try the optional DMG rules for Disarm? Essentially the same as grapple and shove.

There’s already “non-Attack” versions for most of the maneuvers: Trip Attack (Shove), Pushing Attack (Shove), Distracting (Help Action), Evasive Footwork (Dodge), Goading Attack (Cha check with Persuasion as an Action), Menacing Attack (Cha check with Intimidate), and Disarming Attack (using DMG optional rules).

All the others really should just be for the BM (or Martial Adept).

Because having someone pick between "changing the battlefield" and "dealing damage" will almost always pick the damage unless the control effect is incredibly powerful, because damage is guaranteed to improve your chances in combat.

By allowing characters to do both, they'll won't have to choose between "Cool or Useful". Now they're "Cool AND Useful". They'll only be boring when they choose to be, which can simply be explained as being "cautious" (since exerting yourself would result in less Hit Dice for the day).


Even if you want to open up maneuvers to others, or to give more to battlemasters, this just feels like the wrong way to do it. That's not what HD are. Some way of using HD to gain temporary hit points, or to shake off conditions? Sure, that sounds reasonable (at least, thematically): HD are about patching yourself back together and staying alive. But using a resource that's supposed to be keeping you alive, to instead attack more effectively? Eh, maybe if you're some sort of blood mage or undead or something?

To me, Hit Dice represent your stamina. They determine how much you can fight this day, and tomorrow. Exerting yourself for an edge in combat seemed an apt way of lowering how much you can fight later on. We all know the trope of a warrior putting himself into more risk by putting his enemy in a worse situation.

[Sam113097]

I will add, it is a better idea if you either eliminate the BM from play, or make it BM only.

I equate this to DMs who allow Sleight of Hand or Stealth checks to duplicate Subtle Spell: doing so if you don’t have a Sorc at the table is less of a big deal. But if you have a Sorc, they’re suddenly wondering why they would ever pick Subtle Spell (or hating the fact they did). This lessens the power of the Sorc class by taking away one of their best unique abilities (and the Sorc certainly doesn’t need powers removed) and granting it to any spellcaster.

I think that about sums it up, at least the way I see it: if you have a Battlemaster in the party, don't do this, as it would take away their niche and make them feel less special in combat. If you don't have a Battlemaster in the party, I say go for it, as it sounds fun.

[RSP]

Because having someone pick between "changing the battlefield" and "dealing damage" will almost always pick the damage unless the control effect is incredibly powerful, because damage is guaranteed to improve your chances in combat.

By allowing characters to do both, they'll won't have to choose between "Cool or Useful". Now they're "Cool AND Useful". They'll only be boring when they choose to be, which can simply be explained as being "cautious" (since exerting yourself would result in less Hit Dice for the day).

I fail to see why it’s a problem that characters have choices (and choices with consequences). “I want to be a BM and a Bladesinger but without having to multiclass” shouldn’t be a thing that’s allowed in 99.99% of games.

“Should I make a weapon attack with my sword, or push the orc back 5’?” probably will be weapon attack unless said orc is on the edge of a cliff or some such. And it’s a great option to have when the situation calls for it.

But just because a Bladelock wants to cast Shadow of Moil and also take the attack action in the same turn doesn’t mean they should be able to, even though Sorcerers with Quickened Metamagic can do it (or Action Surging fighters for that matter).

5e is set up pretty well that you can achieve lots of different ability combos. However, it takes multiclassing, and sacrificing other abilities, to do so. And that’s fine, at least in my opinion.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd be fine with that, if Attacking wasn't the primary form of contribution for 50% of the classes, and if attacks did more than just "Deal X damage".

"Deal X Damage" doesn't add anything that teammates or enemies can interact with. To me, that's a problem in a team-based game. Even in Soccer, scoring only happens about 10% of the time.

That's not saying scoring shouldn't be important, I just mean that teamwork should be worth more.

[Zetakya]

Like several people so far in the thread, I thought this would be an excellent proposal for giving the Battlemaster additional Manoeuvres, but I'm not in favour of it opening them to other classes/subs

[RSP]

I'd be fine with that, if Attacking wasn't the primary form of contribution for 50% of the classes, and if attacks did more than just "Deal X damage".

"Deal X Damage" doesn't add anything that teammates or enemies can interact with. To me, that's a problem in a team-based game. Even in Soccer, scoring only happens about 10% of the time.

That's not saying scoring shouldn't be important, I just mean that teamwork should be worth more.

I think you’d probably benefit from just playing a different system, rather than reinventing the wheel here. Eating up HPs is pretty crucial to how 5e works.

But if you’re really interested in making it work, just give BM maneuvers to everyone and ditch the BM subclass. Now everyone has access to what you want.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think you’d probably benefit from just playing a different system, rather than reinventing the wheel here. Eating up HPs is pretty crucial to how 5e works.

But if you’re really interested in making it work, just give BM maneuvers to everyone and ditch the BM subclass. Now everyone has access to what you want.

Is it that big of a negative impact on the Battlemaster?

To me, the comparison is similar to Sorcerers. Having 2 full-casting Charisma casters, a spell list with virtually no unique spells, and only the prospect of casting those spells better through Metamagic doesn't seem enough to justify the Sorcerer to be removed.

There are some concerns about the Sorcerer, but I don't think there has been much much mention of "Sorcerers shouldn't exist".

[kazaryu]

"You may expend a Hit Die to use one of the Battlemaster Maneuvers, using half of the roll of the Hit Die (rounded down) as the result of your Superiority Die."

Useless? Overpowered? It's hard to say for me. Would you allow this at your table?

teh biggest issue i have with this mechanically is that some of the battlemaster maneuvers allow extra attacks, specifically off turn attacks. which can disproportionately buff certain classes (i.e. rogues/paladins). However, in the case of rogues...ehhh, its probably fine. i mean it does mean that a TWF rogue could trip attack into a BA attack to potentially grant themselves the ability to sneak attack, but they're paying a cost for that so its not terrible. similarly, a paladin being able to riposte....i mean they still need to expend spell slots to smite so...probably fine.

the bigger issue i have is that it makes BM less unique. so i'd definitely only allow it in games where I didn't have a BM. sure, the 'BM does it better'. but its not the degree of skill thats the issue, its the ability itself. 'spellcasting' and 'making an attack' are all generalized abilities. to add on to that, you now have nearly every character able to access all of the battlemasters maneuvers, while the battlemaster is only 'better' at a few of them. so yeah...for sure i'd only do something like this if there were no BM's. and i'd make it clear to the party that if someone dies/retires and decides to come in with a BM that this ability would go away. i've already considered essentially the same thing for metamagic (since in previous editions everyone could metamagic).

[jmartkdr]

Is it that big of a negative impact on the Battlemaster?

To me, the comparison is similar to Sorcerers. Having 2 full-casting Charisma casters, a spell list with virtually no unique spells, and only the prospect of casting those spells better through Metamagic doesn't seem enough to justify the Sorcerer to be removed.

There are some concerns about the Sorcerer, but I don't think there has been much much mention of "Sorcerers shouldn't exist".

It's more comparable to letting anyone make an Intelligence check (and, yes, spend a hit die) to cast any spell. Or make a charisma check to grant bardic inspiration. Or get the benefits of rage by roleplaying being really angry.

Except you didn't add a check - anyone can just do the subclass's special feature. If your subclass doesn't let you do something new, it loses a lot of value (and would be the only subclass that doesn't have a special feature unique to that subclass.)

[RSP]

Is it that big of a negative impact on the Battlemaster?

To me, the comparison is similar to Sorcerers. Having 2 full-casting Charisma casters, a spell list with virtually no unique spells, and only the prospect of casting those spells better through Metamagic doesn't seem enough to justify the Sorcerer to be removed.

There are some concerns about the Sorcerer, but I don't think there has been much much mention of "Sorcerers shouldn't exist".

Compare it to Sorcerer’s metamagic. If anyone can do metamagic, would anyone play a Sorcerer?

[Man_Over_Game]

Compare it to Sorcerer’s metamagic. If anyone can do metamagic, would anyone play a Sorcerer?

If it cost you a Hit Die per spell level, I'd imagine so.

[stoutstien]

I'd be fine with that, if Attacking wasn't the primary form of contribution for 50% of the classes, and if attacks did more than just "Deal X damage".

"Deal X Damage" doesn't add anything that teammates or enemies can interact with. To me, that's a problem in a team-based game. Even in Soccer, scoring only happens about 10% of the time.

That's not saying scoring shouldn't be important, I just mean that teamwork should be worth more.

this is really the heart of the issue for Dm/players who want more dynamic game play. personally i think the martial classes should all have some form of rider they add to weapon attacks that can utilized by others.

[Chronos]

In some sense, though, HD aren't individual resources, but party ones. If the not-a-sorcerer spends all of their HD (or even a significant fraction of them) on metamagic, or the not-a-battlemaster spends them on maneuvers, is the cleric really going to say "Nope, I'm not going to use any healing on you; you could have chosen to use your HD on healing like everyone else, sorry"? Probably not. Using up your HD on something other than healing yourself means more of the party's resources going to heal you, which in turn means less of those resources for everyone else.

[Man_Over_Game]

In some sense, though, HD aren't individual resources, but party ones. If the not-a-sorcerer spends all of their HD (or even a significant fraction of them) on metamagic, or the not-a-battlemaster spends them on maneuvers, is the cleric really going to say "Nope, I'm not going to use any healing on you; you could have chosen to use your HD on healing like everyone else, sorry"? Probably not. Using up your HD on something other than healing yourself means more of the party's resources going to heal you, which in turn means less of those resources for everyone else.

We've all been in situations where we've had too many Hit Dice. I don't think I've ever been in a situation where we've had too few.

Where you see more resources spent on the martial, I see more reliance on the healer. More damage is getting cycled in a short amount of time, more resources being spent.

It's kinda like how GDP is tracked for a country. It's not how much in resources it has, but how much is being regularly spent. Someone buys a haircut, which lets someone else buy a watch, which lets someone else buy a house, and so on. If there are fewer haircuts being bought, it impacts everything else.

Well, in this case, the Barbarian is spending a Hit Die, so the Cleric is spending a spell slot, so the Wizard needs to cast Shield more often, and so on.

More resources being spent means more interactivity between the group. Additionally, gaining health back isn't a very interactive mechanic when pushing them back or knocking them Prone is.

It creates action, and essentially depletes your players' resources faster, meaning more tense conclusions or faster adventuring days. When the Wizard wants to call it a day, now so does everyone else.

[RSP]

If it cost you a Hit Die per spell level, I'd imagine so.

A better comparison would be 1HD per Sorc Point.

But if you told me I could Subtle Spell when needed at the cost of a HD, then there’s no need to pick Sorc over Wizard. Subtle is the best Metamagic, but it’s situationally useful, and those situations can be covered by HD.

And the Wizard doesn’t even have to use half their selection of Metamagic choices to do this. They just get it free. Or twin. Or Extend. Whatever.

[Man_Over_Game]

A better comparison would be 1HD per Sorc Point.

But if you told me I could Subtle Spell when needed at the cost of a HD, then there’s no need to pick Sorc over Wizard. Subtle is the best Metamagic, but it’s situationally useful, and those situations can be covered by HD.

And the Wizard doesn’t even have to use half their selection of Metamagic choices to do this. They just get it free. Or twin. Or Extend. Whatever.

Part of the intent of the idea was to add an option that wasn't a guaranteed gain, due to the fact that Hit Dice have inherent value.

That is, Martials use Hit Dice to heal, and the healing may be worth more than the extra effect or damage it could give you. Not guaranteed, but roughly even.

When considering casters in the same way, it's a different story. Hit Dice are less valuable for them, since their HD are smaller, and their Con bonuses are lower. They also aren't usually in the line of fire as often as a martial, so they often take less overall damage. Hit Dice are valuable to a martial, but much less so for a caster. It'd be akin to offering a Bonus Action attack to a Paladin. What else were you going to do with it?

Additionally, casters gain power through spell levels, while martials gain power through multiple attacks. Having it tie into spell level vs. per attack is how you'd prevent it from scaling too well.

Looking at it, though, the comparison seems a bigger difference than a 1/3 caster vs. a full caster.

Level 8:

Full Caster has 12 spell slots
1/3 Caster has 6 spell slots
Battlemaster can use about a total of x14 per day (5 dice per Short Rest, has 4 per day from Hit Dice, x1 Short Rest means 5+5+4)
Anyone can use about 4 per day.



That's roughly the comparison of Martial Adept to a level 3 Battlemaster. Or Magic Initiate to an Eldritch Knight of the same level. That's not including the fact that the results on your "improvised maneuver" is less than the BM, even though MI is no weaker than another caster's spells.

[Samayu]

"You may expend a Hit Die to use one of the Battlemaster Maneuvers, using half of the roll of the Hit Die (rounded down) as the result of your Superiority Die."

Useless? Overpowered? It's hard to say for me. Would you allow this at your table?

OK, well... I have two problems with Battle Master maneuvers. One is that other combatants should be able to get maneuvers, and the other is that Battle Masters should bet more. So my first thought is yes, followed by upping the number of maneuvers the BM gets to choose.

I kinda feel like giving everyone a free Martial Adept feat (including the Battle Master).

But this is because I think more combatants should have the option to do more things than just swinging for damage. I'd like to see more interesting things happening on the battlefield. The problem is that these abilities are set up to be something that people have to train for. So when it comes down to that, I become opposed to the idea of other people training to learn these maneuvers. Why would a wizard train for a certain combat maneuver, and what would he give up to do so?

Or is your idea that a person can do any of them at any time? Then the BM can now do any maneuver, but on the ones he hasn't trained for, he only gets half a d10 for a bonus. I love it, but that's quite an increase in power. And I would take commander's strike off the table for that one.

Anyway, half the hit die for a bonus means nonmartials will not gain much damage (and some maneuvers will not be worth much), but may feel a great increase in utility.

But the heart of your question seems to be whether hit dice is an acceptable mechanic. Is there a precedent for this? Are hit dice ever used for anything besides healing? And does giving up damage recovery for an attack feel like a reasonable thing?

Also, I would limit it to once per rest, not once per hit die you want to spend. I think it would be rare that the cost outweighed the benefit.

[stoutstien]

OK, well... I have two problems with Battle Master maneuvers. One is that other combatants should be able to get maneuvers, and the other is that Battle Masters should bet more. So my first thought is yes, followed by upping the number of maneuvers the BM gets to choose.

I kinda feel like giving everyone a free Martial Adept feat (including the Battle Master).

But this is because I think more combatants should have the option to do more things than just swinging for damage. I'd like to see more interesting things happening on the battlefield. The problem is that these abilities are set up to be something that people have to train for. So when it comes down to that, I become opposed to the idea of other people training to learn these maneuvers. Why would a wizard train for a certain combat maneuver, and what would he give up to do so?

Or is your idea that a person can do any of them at any time? Then the BM can now do any maneuver, but on the ones he hasn't trained for, he only gets half a d10 for a bonus. I love it, but that's quite an increase in power. And I would take commander's strike off the table for that one.

Anyway, half the hit die for a bonus means nonmartials will not gain much damage (and some maneuvers will not be worth much), but may feel a great increase in utility.

But the heart of your question seems to be whether hit dice is an acceptable mechanic. Is there a precedent for this? Are hit dice ever used for anything besides healing? And does giving up damage recovery for an attack feel like a reasonable thing?

Also, I would limit it to once per rest, not once per hit die you want to spend. I think it would be rare that the cost outweighed the benefit.

you could tie the idea of a "base" maneuver system into the ability scores. STR and DEX have a separate list that expands as your score grows. that way you could gate some of the more powerful options for later levels. then tie the number of dice in the pool to Con.

[Trustypeaches]

I think this is fine at lower levels when hit die are a valuable resource, but by tiers 3 and 4 when other sources of healing are also far more common, I think this trade off holds much less weight.

[Crucius]

Overall I think it is a fine idea; attacking for damage is one of the most boring things you could be doing in the game, so I welcome any addition to make combat more tactical through battlefield manipulation.

I think what most people dislike about this is the fact that it treads on the Battlemaster. The solution is simple then:
What is the designing principle? Battlefield manipulation? Cherry pick a few maneuvers or other abilities that work on a basic level (pillage some spells or smites, anything you deem interesting), heck maybe even design new conditions.

Make a short list of these features and, this is very important, do NOT call them maneuvers. Naming things determines half the perception of the ability.

Should you go this route I have a recommendation for an ability:
Bleed: The target takes extra damage equal to half your expended hit die at the end of its next turn. (as a concentration buster. As a barbarian I noticed I would often not do enough damage to increase the concentration DC, so imposing another save would be a subtle way to pester spellcasters without increasing damage output greatly)


I think this is fine at lower levels when hit die are a valuable resource, but by tiers 3 and 4 when other sources of healing are also far more common, I think this trade off holds much less weight.

I feel this to be true as well. Campaign dependent of course until which levels the game will go.

[Vogie]

There are certain maneuvers that can be performed at the cost of an damaging attack on a creature - Disarm, Shove, Knockdown, and smashing nonmagical objects - that are already available as variants in the DMG. The difference is that Battlemasters can use Trip Attack to deal damage AND knockdown, instead of picking either-or.

I could see the use of (Hit-die)/2 maneuvers for non-battlemaster characters... in a high-damage game with the variant Healing Surge Rules. In RAW, Traditional 5e, hit die become less and relevant due to many of the things mentioned above - spells, magic armor, and various class features. However, if you're using them for both your normal healing AND short rest healing, that changes the dynamic. If everyone's health is going up and down far more than a healer or two can handle, the ability to hide, healing surge, and rejoin is much more useful than waiting for the healer to run over AND spend a spell slot for potentially less healing than a surge, for a d10 or d12 hit die class.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I wouldn’t allow it due to stepping on the BM’s toes: why would anyone now be a BM?

The BM is a pretty bad subclass to begin with. Yeah, it does damage has one one great option for non-damage effects, but it just doesn't have the feel of a master of battle.

The maneuvers you use at level 3 is the maneuvers you use at level 18.

Imagine how royally :smallfurious: people would be if wizards got more spell slots but no spells over first level and they were playing at level 18.

[Man_Over_Game]

The BM is a pretty bad subclass to begin with. Yeah, it does damage has one one great option for non-damage effects, but it just doesn't have the feel of a master of battle.

The maneuvers you use at level 3 is the maneuvers you use at level 18.

Imagine how royally :smallfurious: people would be if wizards got more spell slots but no spells over first level and they were playing at level 18.

To be fair, I think that's less of a problem with Battlemasters and more of a problem with martials altogether.

[Mr. Wonderful]

Apply it to other class abilities and see if it still makes sense.

Expend HD to turn into a beast like a druid, rage like a barbarian, smite like a paladin etc etc.

That might actually be a fun system to play but it wouldn't be D&D.

[Bobthewizard]

I really like this idea if there are no battlemasters in the party. In fact, if there are no battle masters, you could just give every martial character the battlemaster maneuvers ability in addition to everything else they get. It wouldn't break the game. They'd still fall behind spell casters at mid to high levels. Combats would be more interesting if everyone had 3-4 maneuvers they could use.