Should Swords Bards Just Learn Maneuvers?

[Amechra]

So, I was thinking about how it's kinda disappointing that they're basically never going to print more maneuvers (who knows when the Class Features UA will actually be incorporated into a book, and how much stuff in there will actually survive?), and it kinda hit me - there really isn't a good reason, in my mind, why the College of Swords doesn't just give you maneuvers instead of giving you three specific Flourishes.

1) Battlemaster is core, so it's not like they're afraid that you don't have access to it.
2) Martial Adept is a thing, so it's not like they're afraid of other characters getting their hands on maneuvers.
3) Maneuvers have already been playtested to death.

My only guess is that they didn't want the Bard to have too much actual versatility in that realm, since they're already full casters (which is... see the spoiler). But seriously - start with two maneuvers, get some extras later on, and you can use Bardic Inspiration uses as superiority dice. Done and dusted.

Am I missing something here?

The Bard should've been a half-caster focused around the social pillar, just like Paladins are half-casters focused around combat and Rangers are half-casters focused around exploration. As it stands, their class features are absolutely eclipsed by the fact that they're a full caster who can (eventually) cherry pick spells from any list, and that frustrates me greatly. Seriously, putting Magical Secrets on a full caster was a terrible idea.

[Pleh]

Honestly, I don't see why martial classes in general aren't more defined by which maneuvers they get native access to.

[Quietus]

Honestly, I don't see why martial classes in general aren't more defined by which maneuvers they get native access to.

Because that would feel too much like 4e, which they were trying to avoid.

In the same vein, I think that's why they went with the unique flourishes. As noted, the bard already gets to beat up casters and take their lunch money. If they were just saying, "Pick flourishes, use those", then they're creating a class that gets to beat up casters AND battlemasters and take both their money.

[Daphne]

No, maneuvers are the Battle Master thing. The feat gives a single use per rest and two maneuvers, so it's not an issue. But Swords Bards get as most uses of flourish as the BM gets superiority dice.

[rlc]

That's basically what they did, but with a limit to their options. The Battlemaster is an entire archetype based around having maneuvers. If they decided to have maneuvers be more like martial spells and let all martial characters have them, then that would be a different story.

[False God]

Because that would feel too much like 4e, which they were trying to avoid.

In the same vein, I think that's why they went with the unique flourishes. As noted, the bard already gets to beat up casters and take their lunch money. If they were just saying, "Pick flourishes, use those", then they're creating a class that gets to beat up casters AND battlemasters and take both their money.

Right on both points.

One of the big issues with 3.5E was that casters could basically do all the martial stuff better than martials, and often from fairly low levels (depending on your stats and your system mastery, or simply make martials an unnecessary part of the game). One of the big issues of 4E was all the classes using the same system for abilities.

So 5E actively avoids doing both, and sure, by 15th level casters are still powerful, but it is much later in the game, plus there remain some things martials can do that casters just can't and they certainly hold their own better in doing it. (assuming simple, single-classed, shenanigans-free builds here folks, I know you can make some nasty early-game combos).

It is unfortunate that Wizards doesn't seem to have much interest in expanding the Battlemaster repertoire, but not unexpected.

[DrKerosene]

Well, Paladins and Ranger (and the College Of Swords too) get limited options from the Fighter’s Fighting Style list. It makes sense that the Sword Bard gets a limited maneuver list too.

I’ve been DMing for slightly homebrewed Sword Bard for over a year, and I did briefly give them the option of some Maneuvers. The most obvious thing about Battle Master Maneuvers is that a lot of them offer saves to resist or require being declared/spent before an attack roll is made (and may miss), while the Bardic Flourishes all just work after a hit (like Paladin Smites).

Also, I think a Battlemaster is technically able to “nova” all their dice in one round, while the Sword Bards are going to need some assistance to spend an equal amount of Flourishes in one round.

[MrStabby]

So, I was thinking about how it's kinda disappointing that they're basically never going to print more maneuvers (who knows when the Class Features UA will actually be incorporated into a book, and how much stuff in there will actually survive?), and it kinda hit me - there really isn't a good reason, in my mind, why the College of Swords doesn't just give you maneuvers instead of giving you three specific Flourishes.

1) Battlemaster is core, so it's not like they're afraid that you don't have access to it.
2) Martial Adept is a thing, so it's not like they're afraid of other characters getting their hands on maneuvers.
3) Maneuvers have already been playtested to death.

My only guess is that they didn't want the Bard to have too much actual versatility in that realm, since they're already full casters (which is... see the spoiler). But seriously - start with two maneuvers, get some extras later on, and you can use Bardic Inspiration uses as superiority dice. Done and dusted.

Am I missing something here?

The Bard should've been a half-caster focused around the social pillar, just like Paladins are half-casters focused around combat and Rangers are half-casters focused around exploration. As it stands, their class features are absolutely eclipsed by the fact that they're a full caster who can (eventually) cherry pick spells from any list, and that frustrates me greatly. Seriously, putting Magical Secrets on a full caster was a terrible idea.

I could see something like this if it cost two uses per manoeuvre and there were limited options so the battlemaster still got access to ones that no one else did. This would still leave the BM doing their thing better whilst tying together themes better (and also making a bit of synergy between BM and SB multiclass.

[Amechra]

One extra thing to consider: Blade Flourish is once per round and only triggers on the Attack action, whereas you can use one maneuver per attack regardless of when that attack is (so you can use them with opportunity attacks and bonus action attacks). If a Swords Bard still had that constraint on Maneuvers, would it feel more acceptable?


No, maneuvers are the Battle Master thing. The feat gives a single use per rest and two maneuvers, so it's not an issue. But Swords Bards get as most uses of flourish as the BM gets superiority dice.

Maybe they shouldn't just be a Battle Master thing, though? Or, rather, maybe a high-level Battle Master should get features that aren't just "your dice are bigger" or "you can recharge one die if you start combat without any dice"?

Like, if they actually got something cool (like the ability to combine maneuvers onto a single attack, or a Master Flourish-style "use a weaker version of your feature for free"), I think there'd be less of a sensation of stealing the Fighter's toys.

[Dork_Forge]

If you want to let them use maneuvers it wouldn't break anything, quite the opposite as Flourishes seem to be a bit more powerful (and they can potentially do them more in tier 1/2 than a BM can use maneuvers). As for should they have worked that way to begin with? I don't think so, that feels like more of a Battle Master-lite subclass rather than a unique subclass which is what Swords turned out to be, they already need to share fighting styles, at least the Flourishes were unique new mechanics (and have the potential to stack with maneuvers).

[False God]

One extra thing to consider: Blade Flourish is once per round and only triggers on the Attack action, whereas you can use one maneuver per attack regardless of when that attack is (so you can use them with opportunity attacks and bonus action attacks). If a Swords Bard still had that constraint on Maneuvers, would it feel more acceptable?

Maybe they shouldn't just be a Battle Master thing, though? Or, rather, maybe a high-level Battle Master should get features that aren't just "your dice are bigger" or "you can recharge one die if you start combat without any dice"?

Like, if they actually got something cool (like the ability to combine maneuvers onto a single attack, or a Master Flourish-style "use a weaker version of your feature for free"), I think there'd be less of a sensation of stealing the Fighter's toys.

No. Because niche protection. 5E is so simplified from its predecessors that it really lacks many niches. Each class (in a general sense) has one and several already overlap.

The fighter gets fighter stuff.

The bard gets bard stuff.

The College of the Sword really shouldn't have been a thing to begin with, because it's clearly a full caster getting to steal martial toys. And it can even do better at martial stuff than martials. And martial attempts at being casters do not even come close.

Yes, the fighter should get better fighter stuff. But this is WotC and it's fanbase we're talking about. We had a whole edition where fighters got better fighter stuff and people threw a fit. So now we have 5e.

[Man_Over_Game]

Honestly, I don't see why martial classes in general aren't more defined by which maneuvers they get native access to.

Same here. It's not like maneuvers are complicated to track (DC is done the same way for every class or spell, most of the maneuvers are "Force a Save, add a die to damage"). Having a system where casters get spells/spellslots and martials get maneuvers would have been a pretty darn solid idea.

[Pleh]

Because that would feel too much like 4e, which they were trying to avoid.

Maybe, but I remember being disappointed with 4e not because martials had nice toys, but because the fighter's spin attack power was almost mechanically identical to the wizard's AoE blast spell, making it feel like my choice of class was a bit superfluous.

My point is that one of the things that makes the various casters feel distinct from one another is their spell list. The same can be true for martials and their respective maneuvers.

What would make me feel like I was reliving the follies of 5e would be if the battlemaster had a maneuver that basically replicated Fireball, then most martials had access to it or weaker versions of it. Right now, the maneuvers and spells feel quite sufficiently distinct.

[MrStabby]

I could see a system where there are different manoeuvre that use different stats. Some based on Str, some on dex etc. With some being performance in style and based on Cha they could sit with a bard well, but the BM would still have access to ALL of them. Would encourage dumping different stats for different manoeuvres. Most would sit in Str and DeX... as they would be there to support fighters.

[Daphne]

I think there'd be less of a sensation of stealing the Fighter's toys.

There would still be lots of crying because you want to give Fighter's toys to a full caster that already gets expertise like the Rogue and gets to steal spells from other lists (including being able to cast Paladin and Ranger spells before the aforementioned are able to).

Additionally, even if it's limited in number of uses, the Bard doesn't need to be as good as the Fighter at fighting all the time, because most of the time he's a caster doing caster stuff.

[Zuras]

If a Swords Bard still had that constraint on Maneuvers, would it feel more acceptable?

Maybe they shouldn't just be a Battle Master thing, though? Or, rather, maybe a high-level Battle Master should get features that aren't just "your dice are bigger" or "you can recharge one die if you start combat without any dice"?



Honestly, I don't see why martial classes in general aren't more defined by which maneuvers they get native access to.


Same here. It's not like maneuvers are complicated to track (DC is done the same way for every class or spell, most of the maneuvers are "Force a Save, add a die to damage"). Having a system where casters get spells/spellslots and martials get maneuvers would have been a pretty darn solid idea.

Yeah, it feels like Wizards missed the mark when they came up with an excellent manuver subsystem for the Battle Master but couldn’t figure out a way to extend it for other martial subclasses.

The main issue is that the initial system was mechanically strong and interesting but not flexible, and had no tiered or level gated maneuvers, presumably because adding maneuvers as a base fighter feature was too complex and they didn’t want to add another 8 pages to the PHB to support a single subclass. Unfortunately, now we’re stuck with it, and based on the UA ideas for other classes using maneuver dice they have discarded because they stepped on the battlemaster’s toes, it seems unlikely to change.

It’s all very much a white room/high level discussion, though, because Battle Masters are playable all the way to 20th and awesome from 3rd-10th. The only thing underwhelming about the maneuvers is that the ones you get at high level are the ones you didn’t want a lower levels.

It’s probably too complex for an official class, but a Battle Master implementation that copied the Psionic die implementation, except giving you multiple dice but decreasing the die every usage rather than randomly increasing/decreasing might work. You could then gate some cool maneuvers based on the size of the die.

[Dork_Forge]

I guess a relevant thing to this discussion is why do people want maneuvers for all? Is it because I swing and hit is a bit boring? There already is alternative things to do (though some listed in the DMG): shove, grapple, disarm, mark etc. What sets the Battle Master apart is that they can do things like this without sacrificing an attack's worth of damage, so with other options available (that I don't think, at least based on discussions here, get used often if at all by some people) why do all martials need access to maneuvers to give melee depth?

[Daphne]

they came up with an excellent manuver subsystem for the Battle Master but couldn’t figure out a way to extend it for other martial subclasses.

It's the opposite, most martials had maneuvers in the playtest and WotC scaled it back to a single Fighter subclass.

[Segev]

Same here. It's not like maneuvers are complicated to track (DC is done the same way for every class or spell, most of the maneuvers are "Force a Save, add a die to damage"). Having a system where casters get spells/spellslots and martials get maneuvers would have been a pretty darn solid idea.

Indeed. Having the battle master even not be a subclass, but every martial type class get some access to their maneuvers, would have made a nicely distinct subsystem for martial classes.

If they did a “5.5e,” I would hope they’d do something like that. Fighters could get both more ASIs and more maneuvers. Paladins and Rangers getting maneuvers would help alleviate some of the pressure on subclasses to carry everything unique about them, and let them access more ways to expand than a few spells per book. Adding maneuvers in books would be as useful as adding spells.

The removal of feat chains is good in 5e, but depending on how they structured maneuvers and number of picks available, they could gate them with chains of prerequisites or just by character level.

[Zuras]

It's the opposite, most martials had maneuvers in the playtest and WotC scaled it back to a single Fighter subclass.

Well, yes, but my point was they couldn’t figure out how to keep the base fighter simple (and avoid the 4e feel, I guess) with maneuvers included, but the simplification of the maneuver system that the Battlemaster uses isn’t versatile enough to support multiple flavors used by different subclasses (at least not without redesigning the Battlemaster, which obviously isn’t happening).

[Quietus]

One extra thing to consider: Blade Flourish is once per round and only triggers on the Attack action, whereas you can use one maneuver per attack regardless of when that attack is (so you can use them with opportunity attacks and bonus action attacks). If a Swords Bard still had that constraint on Maneuvers, would it feel more acceptable?



Maybe they shouldn't just be a Battle Master thing, though? Or, rather, maybe a high-level Battle Master should get features that aren't just "your dice are bigger" or "you can recharge one die if you start combat without any dice"?

Like, if they actually got something cool (like the ability to combine maneuvers onto a single attack, or a Master Flourish-style "use a weaker version of your feature for free"), I think there'd be less of a sensation of stealing the Fighter's toys.

You make two excellent points here - Battlemasters do get to add maneuvers to all of their attacks, and that would be an excellent thing if they were to attempt to recapture the Book of Nine Swords feel. And yes, I do think that they should have included on the Battlemaster a high level option to use one maneuver per turn at 1d6 die without spending their other, higher powered dice. Probably with a caveat that you can only do that on a turn where you don't use any other maneuver. That way they will, at high levels, CONSTANTLY be doing something. Then again, they're also the most combat-flexible class already...

[Segev]

Well, yes, but my point was they couldn’t figure out how to keep the base fighter simple (and avoid the 4e feel, I guess) with maneuvers included, but the simplification of the maneuver system that the Battlemaster uses isn’t versatile enough to support multiple flavors used by different subclasses (at least not without redesigning the Battlemaster, which obviously isn’t happening).

Perhaps. But having a subclass for each of Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and maybe even monk or rogue that got maneuvers would have made for a stronger too for future design.

Pity that the UA with such subclasses supposedly got bad reception. It sounds like a good general idea.

[Morty]

Yeah, it feels like Wizards missed the mark when they came up with an excellent manuver subsystem for the Battle Master but couldn’t figure out a way to extend it for other martial subclasses.


They did extend that on every martial character during the playtest. Then they cut it up and restricted it to one fighter subclass, presumably because people complained.

[Pleh]

I guess a relevant thing to this discussion is why do people want maneuvers for all? Is it because I swing and hit is a bit boring? There already is alternative things to do (though some listed in the DMG): shove, grapple, disarm, mark etc. What sets the Battle Master apart is that they can do things like this without sacrificing an attack's worth of damage, so with other options available (that I don't think, at least based on discussions here, get used often if at all by some people) why do all martials need access to maneuvers to give melee depth?

This is a good question.

But I would say that the freedom to chose from ANY Fighting Style is part of what sets Fighter apart from other martial characters, yet this doesn't preclude other martials from having access to a stricter set of Fighting Styles.


why do all martials need access to maneuvers to give melee depth?

I don't think it's to give melee depth. I think it's more the fact that one of the kids in the sandbox has clearly superior toys that could be quite reasonably shared without stepping too hard on niche protection, benefiting martials and the game as a whole by giving more toys to more players.

Maybe the Barbarian can only choose from Menacing Attack, Pushing Attack, and Sweeping Attack, as these maneuvers are compatible with their Reckless Attacks.

Maybe Rangers could have a more dedicated Bounty Hunter subclass that gets Disarming Attack, Precision Attack, and Trip Attack.

Paladin could have just the maneuvers that make them a bit more of a Warlord: Commander's Strike, Maneuvering Attack, and Rally.

You know, just a few maneuvers that already fit their paradigm. They can't do all the fantastic feats a battlemaster can, but they each own a corner of the martial wheelhouse.

[Dork_Forge]

This is a good question.

But I would say that the freedom to chose from ANY Fighting Style is part of what sets Fighter apart from other martial characters, yet this doesn't preclude other martials from having access to a stricter set of Fighting Styles.



I don't think it's to give melee depth. I think it's more the fact that one of the kids in the sandbox has clearly superior toys that could be quite reasonably shared without stepping too hard on niche protection, benefiting martials and the game as a whole by giving more toys to more players.

Maybe the Barbarian can only choose from Menacing Attack, Pushing Attack, and Sweeping Attack, as these maneuvers are compatible with their Reckless Attacks.

Maybe Rangers could have a more dedicated Bounty Hunter subclass that gets Disarming Attack, Precision Attack, and Trip Attack.

Paladin could have just the maneuvers that make them a bit more of a Warlord: Commander's Strike, Maneuvering Attack, and Rally.

You know, just a few maneuvers that already fit their paradigm. They can't do all the fantastic feats a battlemaster can, but they each own a corner of the martial wheelhouse.

I think that their ability to choose any fighting style is a minor perk that helps support the Fighter as the generic martial class to be molded into what you want. The issue with maneuvers is that it's a subclass feature, not a core class feature, that isn't taken into consideration in the balancing of classes. Each martial has their own source of damage/schtick: Fighter (number of attacks/Action Surge), Paladin (Smites/Smite spells), Ranger (Hunter's Mark), Barbarian (Rage Damage, smaller since damage is a lower objective for the barbarian as a whole). When you trickle maneuvers into those classes without cost, then you start to see multiclass level combos creeping up without actually needing to multiclass. Then when you do actually multiclass things start to get a little bit crazier as you're getting the normal goodies but also amassing different maneuvers and a growing SD pool.

I think the Class Varients method of just giving a Fighting Style that allows access to maneuvers is the right way to go, it integrates well into other classes because it costs them any other potential styles, whilst not stepping on the Battle Master's toes (they still have the most/highest size SD, most maneuvers etc.).

[Segev]

I think that their ability to choose any fighting style is a minor perk that helps support the Fighter as the generic martial class to be molded into what you want. The issue with maneuvers is that it's a subclass feature, not a core class feature, that isn't taken into consideration in the balancing of classes. Each martial has their own source of damage/schtick: Fighter (number of attacks/Action Surge), Paladin (Smites/Smite spells), Ranger (Hunter's Mark), Barbarian (Rage Damage, smaller since damage is a lower objective for the barbarian as a whole). When you trickle maneuvers into those classes without cost, then you start to see multiclass level combos creeping up without actually needing to multiclass. Then when you do actually multiclass things start to get a little bit crazier as you're getting the normal goodies but also amassing different maneuvers and a growing SD pool.

I think the Class Varients method of just giving a Fighting Style that allows access to maneuvers is the right way to go, it integrates well into other classes because it costs them any other potential styles, whilst not stepping on the Battle Master's toes (they still have the most/highest size SD, most maneuvers etc.).

For 5e as-is, yes, you can't just toss maneuvers on all the martial classes. For all the reasons given here, especially stepping on the Battle MAster's toes.

But I think the way to approach it is to make a Maneuver-focused subclass for various classes.

So, we've already got the College of Swords, and we're not going to CHANGE that, but you might have a College of Battle. Heck, maybe you could do something interesting with the inspiration die and the superiority die interacting or sharing a resource or something.

A Path of the Warlord (barbarian), a Huntmaster Archetype (ranger), and an Oath of Battle (paladin) could work.

Oaths have the structure of two Channel Divinity options, then an Aura, then two more special features. Give them 1-2 maneuvers at level 3, and 1 superiority die, with a channel divinity that gives them their Charisma modifier in superiority dice, maybe. (Numbers definitely need work; I'm spitballing structure here.) Aura could grant a maneuver and a superiority die to use it to allies. Or maybe they get one maneuver of their own, and two maneuvers they can grant to themselves or allies with a Channel Divinity use. The Channel Divinity also grants a superority die to the target. The two versions of Channel Divinity are one that grants the die and the maneuver for a certain amount of time, and one that lets the target spend a Reaction to use them RIGHT NOW. The Aura then can just grant more superiority dice to those who already have them. Or maybe let them spend hit dice to gain superiority dice.

The Path of the Warlord might give the Barbarian a number of maneuvers known (3?) and a number of superiority dice while raging equal to the rage damage bonus. Probably needs a little more than that, and other than "more maneuvers" I'm not sure what to give them at levels beyond 3, though. "More maneuvers" are needed, but aren't ENOUGH.

The Huntmaster might be a many-pets build. None as (theoretically) strong as the Beast Master's pet (should be), but give him a few small Beasts who have maneuvers they're trained in, and his own maneuvers, and superiority dice to spend on them and himself. Might even be a better design to use the Beast Master's conceit of them being extensions of his own actions, framing them as actively useful powers but that don't act on their own because they need him to activate their superiority dice or something. At higher level, give him more extra attacks/actions to spend between them, or a way to use them as a pack.

[Morty]

I am, admittedly, not sure why every class that gets fighting styles can't pick out of a full list. What would actually get worse if rangers could specialize in two-handed weapons? They can use them anyway, they just need to pick the defender style.

[LtPowers]

Maybe, but I remember being disappointed with 4e not because martials had nice toys, but because the fighter's spin attack power was almost mechanically identical to the wizard's AoE blast spell, making it feel like my choice of class was a bit superfluous.

How would you distinguish a spin attack power from a AoE spell beyond the several ways they already differ?

I'm not sure exactly which powers you're talking about, but martial exploits usually attack AC, while spells usually attack one of the other defenses. Martial exploits generally can affect anyone within reach of the character's weapon, while a blast spell originates from the character but only covers squares on one side of the caster. The exploit damage is also dependent on the martial character's weapon, while the spell damage is consistent and independent of what the caster is wielding.

That seems like a lot of differences to me.

Now, to the extent that the mechanics of both involve rolling dice and comparing the results to a set target number, I guess they're the same, but is that really all that different from what we have today? Is a firebolt spell all that different from an arrow shot from a bow, mechanically?


Powers &8^]

[Segev]

How would you distinguish a spin attack power from a AoE spell beyond the several ways they already differ?

I'm not sure exactly which powers you're talking about, but martial exploits usually attack AC, while spells usually attack one of the other defenses. Martial exploits generally can affect anyone within reach of the character's weapon, while a blast spell originates from the character but only covers squares on one side of the caster. The exploit damage is also dependent on the martial character's weapon, while the spell damage is consistent and independent of what the caster is wielding.

That seems like a lot of differences to me.

Now, to the extent that the mechanics of both involve rolling dice and comparing the results to a set target number, I guess they're the same, but is that really all that different from what we have today? Is a firebolt spell all that different from an arrow shot from a bow, mechanically?


Powers &8^]

For me, it's about the way the subsystem feels when you play with it.

A martial adept in 3.5 could use an AoE power and still feel different because his whole subsystem operates under a paradigm that 4e adopted for everyone. He has encounter powers, he has a refresh mechanic (because it's NOT a spell), and he readies and uses powers differently than spellcasters do. Spellcasters have a 5e-like suite of spell slots as a diminishing resource, and either pre-selected which spells occupy each slot, or have a 5e-like list of spells known they assign to the slots as they use them.

Because they use different underlying subsystems, they feel different.

3.5 Psionics was very close to spellcasting, but just the introduction of power points, augmentation, and the psionic focus changed the feel around considerably.

5e's latest UA has a wholly different psionic mechanic in the form of the psionic talent die. The dѰ gives an entirely different structure around which to use powers that use it, and its own resource to tap.

4e's mistake was making everyone use the martial adept system. Or at least a system closely modeled on what the martial adepts had in 3.5. It's not that it's a bad subsystem, but it makes playing a spellcaster feel less like playing something distinct from playing a fighter, and playing a rogue feel like playing a fighter, too.

5e's only nod to the martial adept system is the maneuver set. They're...not the same thing at all, but they're as close as 5e has gotten. And the superiority dice aren't a terrible mechanic. It's somewhere between spell slots and power points, with more similarity to the dѰ than I might have expected simply by using dice as an expendable resource that must be rolled as part of SOMETHING in each maneuver.

But the superiority dice and maneuver subsystem would not in any way make martial characters feel like spellcasters. Which is why making it spread to all the martials isn't a bad thing.

[Morty]

I'm not sure exactly which powers you're talking about, but martial exploits usually attack AC

Those complaints very rarely name any specific powers, I find.

[Segev]

Those complaints very rarely name any specific powers, I find.

In my case, they don't have to. It's the subsystem being the only subsystem that causes the problem for me. "Fireball" being a 1/day power rather than something I could prepare several of. "Magic Missile" being a "at-will" power is nice, and really only the at-will powers even come close to avoiding the issue because "at will" dodges the subsystem question.

The spellcasters, the skill-masters, and the fighters all were martial adepts. There weren't really any spellcasters or skill-masters. That was the issue for me. It didn't feel like D&D; it felt like some other streamlined fantasy combat simulator designed to play in a board game. Which is fine, bit it wasn't what I wanted from D&D.

[Starbuck_II]

So, how about Sword Bard like subclass is like Hexblade, changes Bard from 1st level.
Instead of magic (except cantrips keep those, but no 1st lv or higher spells):
Bard gets martial maneuvers (and flourish)?

Would it be too strong?

[Man_Over_Game]

So, how about Sword Bard like subclass is like Hexblade, changes Bard from 1st level.
Instead of magic (except cantrips keep those, but no 1st lv or higher spells):
Bard gets martial maneuvers (and flourish)?

Would it be too strong?

Definitely too weak. Basic attacking doesn't scale enough to stand on its own. That's why Fighters get Action Surge and Fighting Styles, Barbarians get Rage damage bonuses, Rogues get Sneak Attack, etc. The thing that scales with Bards is their spellcasting. Take that away, and you have to give them something else that also scales. The weapon cantrips scale, but not enough to define an entire class's regular contribution.

[HPisBS]

Perhaps. But having a subclass for each of Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and maybe even monk or rogue that got maneuvers would have made for a stronger too for future design.

Pity that the UA with such subclasses supposedly got bad reception. It sounds like a good general idea.

Monk definitely deserves certain maneuvers. It really bugs me that disarming, pushing, tripping, and countering aren't part of martial arts.


For 5e as-is, yes, you can't just toss maneuvers on all the martial classes. For all the reasons given here, especially stepping on the Battle MAster's toes.

But I think the way to approach it is to make a Maneuver-focused subclass for various classes.

So, we've already got the College of Swords, and we're not going to CHANGE that, but you might have a College of Battle....

College of Warfare. (Commander's Strike, Rally, Maneuvering Strike)

[Segev]

Monk definitely deserves certain maneuvers. It really bugs me that disarming, pushing, tripping, and countering aren't part of martial arts.



College of Warfare. (Commander's Strike, Rally, Maneuvering Strike)

Sure! Sound like good ideas to me.

Oddly enough, the Way of the Open Hand has pushing and tripping. If you feel that one is too weak at later levels, maybe sneaking some superiority dice and maneuvers in at level 6 and later might work?

[HPisBS]

Oddly enough, the Way of the Open Hand has pushing and tripping.

Yeah, Open Hand can push and trip, but that's one subclass out of, what, seven, now? And it requires you to spend ki to flurry. When those, plus countering and disarming - especially countering - should be a core part of Martial Arts.

[Segev]

Yeah, Open Hand can push and trip, but that's one subclass out of, what, seven, now? And it requires you to spend ki to flurry. When those, plus countering and disarming - especially countering - should be a core part of Martial Arts.

Nothing's stopping a monk from making a push or grapple with his attack action, then following up with martial arts's bonus action attack or a flurry of blows.

[Man_Over_Game]

Nothing's stopping a monk from making a push or grapple with his attack action, then following up with martial arts's bonus action attack or a flurry of blows.

Well, other than 4 levels and low strength. That might not be enough of a deterrent, but it certainly can be.

[Segev]

Well, other than 4 levels and low strength. That might not be enough of a deterrent, but it certainly can be.

4 levels?

Low Str is a choice, and yes, monks can make it. But they still can do it. There really isn't a dedicated grapple class.

[Man_Over_Game]

4 levels?

Low Str is a choice, and yes, monks can make it. But they still can do it. There really isn't a dedicated grapple class.

You need to have at least 5 levels into Monk, otherwise you can't attack with a Monk weapon/unarmed strike AND grapple/shove, so you don't fulfill the requirements to get your BA attack.

A lenient DM may allow you to ignore that requirement, but that'd probably be houserule territory.

[Segev]

You need to have at least 5 levels into Monk, otherwise you can't attack with a Monk weapon/unarmed strike AND grapple/shove, so you don't fulfill the requirements to get your BA attack.

A lenient DM may allow you to ignore that requirement, but that'd probably be houserule territory.

Ah, right, that would be required with Martial Arts. But... flurry of blows is worded differently: "Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action."

So, it costs ki, but by level 2 you can make a grapple or shove and then kick them twice.

[DrKerosene]

The Huntmaster might be a many-pets build. None as (theoretically) strong as the Beast Master's pet (should be), but give him a few small Beasts who have maneuvers they're trained in, and his own maneuvers, and superiority dice to spend on them and himself. Might even be a better design to use the Beast Master's conceit of them being extensions of his own actions, framing them as actively useful powers but that don't act on their own because they need him to activate their superiority dice or something. At higher level, give him more extra attacks/actions to spend between them, or a way to use them as a pack.

Huh, I do like this idea.

I believe there is some unofficial book called “Xanathar’s Lost Notes To Everything Else” that has a Ranger Subclass called the Bergal Hunter or something. Sounds like a description for Witchers, gains the Find Familiar spell, and get’s a short listed of maneuvers with unlimited d4s. Seemed a little OP, but I liked the idea.

[Morty]

I'm just going to point out, as usual, that rogues need something interesting to do in combat as desperately as martial classes do, if not more. Even a champion fighter gets to use action surge and second wind now and then. Rogues don't get even that. And I don't think they did, even in the playtest.

[DrKerosene]

I'm just going to point out, as usual, that rogues need something interesting to do in combat as desperately as martial classes do, if not more. Even a champion fighter gets to use action surge and second wind now and then. Rogues don't get even that. And I don't think they did, even in the playtest.

I assume you don’t mean the ability to Bonus Action Dash, Disengage, and Hide in combat (like an at-will semi-Action Surge), or a second attempt to try to get Sneak Attack?

Are we also ignoring that Uncanny Dodge is kind of like unlimited Parry (BM maneuver, not the feat ability from Defensive Duelist)?

And not the Thief Bonus Action Fast Hands to steal something from an enemy, or plant a (magic) item on them (or heal allies with that Healer feat and some kits)?

Nor the Mastermind Bonus Action ability to use Aid Another at range?


Though I would like to see some maneuvers for the Rogue, if they are being given out to all martial classes.

[ZRN]

Looking at the flourishes, they're all more powerful than most battlemaster maneuvers.

Mobile flourish: basically Pushing Attack (with NO SAVE) + extra free movement

Defensive flourish: no real comparison in maneuvers, but it'd be a pretty popular one.

Slashing flourish: Sweeping Attack but flat-out better

The reason they're not overpowered is that they're on a bard (with otherwise mediocre HP and armor and offensive melee capabilities) rather than a guy with a greatsword and 30AC. They also use up a resource from another core class feature rather than adding a brand new resource for the subclass.

Why not let sword bards pick maneuvers also/instead? One, it'd be more complex and harder to build an effective character without a lot of system mastery; two, many of the other maneuvers would do a worse job of conveying the sword-bard concept even if they were more powerful. For example, a "sword bard" with Commander's Strike, Rally, and Distracting Strike is possibly more powerful, but they're now basically just a more powerful support character rather than a daring swashbuckler guy.

EDIT: To be clear, this is why I think they designed the subclass the way they did; if you/your player is considering a houserule to allow this because of some very specific character concept you/they want to try, I don't think it'd be particularly overpowered.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Honestly, I don't see why martial classes in general aren't more defined by which maneuvers they get native access to.

Because all there is to fighting is swinging a weapon. All fighter types do nothing but move and attack in real life so they wanted to simulate that in 5e.


Martials getting maneuvers would complicate the game too much, can't have anything that would cause players to think beyond a couple seconds... It's not like magic causes this to happen or else they would totally have gotten rid of magic too, so magic is safe.


Because that would feel too much like 4e, which they were trying to avoid.

In the same vein, I think that's why they went with the unique flourishes. As noted, the bard already gets to beat up casters and take their lunch money. If they were just saying, "Pick flourishes, use those", then they're creating a class that gets to beat up casters AND battlemasters and take both their money.

What's funny is that a majority of 4e made it into 5e. Way more 4e ideology than 3e. The game just looks like 3e (which the 4e mechanics came from UA 3e).



I'm just going to point out, as usual, that rogues need something interesting to do in combat as desperately as martial classes do, if not more. Even a champion fighter gets to use action surge and second wind now and then. Rogues don't get even that. And I don't think they did, even in the playtest.

There's only 2.75 martial classes in 5e.

Fighter (1), Rogue (1), and Barbarian (.75)

All other classes are Gish or Full Casters.

Barbarians fall into magic really fast unless you want to take a bad subclass.

Rogues have some cool stuff, especially if you take Mastermind. Help Action at 30' as a bonus action is fantastic, you just need to fluff it.

[Segev]

I'm just going to point out, as usual, that rogues need something interesting to do in combat as desperately as martial classes do, if not more. Even a champion fighter gets to use action surge and second wind now and then. Rogues don't get even that. And I don't think they did, even in the playtest.Cunning Action begs to differ with you. >_>

That by itself makes rogues have a lot of interesting options. Add in, say, the Thief's abiltiy to climb at full speed opening up a third dimension of movement, or an Arcane Trickster's magical abilities, and rogues get a fair bit to do that's interesting. Thief still could use more, but the climb thing isn't nothing, and together with cunning action is a very versatile pair of tools.


What's funny is that a majority of 4e made it into 5e. Way more 4e ideology than 3e. The game just looks like 3e (which the 4e mechanics came from UA 3e).But the key thing that made 4e unpopular was ditched in favor of a more 2e or 3e-like embrace of multiple different subsystems to represent different classes and types. 4e wasn't all bad. It had a lot of good, cool stuff in it. I think they did a good job picking and choosing what to bring forward from both 3e and 4e.





There's only 2.75 martial classes in 5e.

Fighter (1), Rogue (1), and Barbarian (.75)

All other classes are Gish or Full Casters.

Barbarians fall into magic really fast unless you want to take a bad subclass.This is something I get annoyed with discussing with some people in 3.PF, too: just because your class has something supernatural or extraordinary-beyond-the-guy-at-the-gym doesn't mean it's a spellcaster. It certainly doesn't mean it ceases to be "a martial character."

Zealot barbarians have radiant damage and a perk related to spells, but aren't spellcasters. Totem Warriors have two rituals, but those don't define them, and even if you claim their totem powers are magic, they remain martial characters.

Monks are martial characters through and through, and their most spellcaster-like and least-martial subclass (4-element) is widely considered their worst. Shadow does get spells, too, but they're a specific subset that make them more stealth-master than "spellcaster." They don't even use spell slots.

[Morty]

I played a Scout Rogue up to level 6. Most of the time, Cunning Action was spent simply moving around the battlefield and hiding to secure advantage on my crossbow attacks. It might have been slightly more exciting if I'd played a melee rogue, but in that case I feel like a ranged rogue is simply better due to doing the same damage but from a safe distance. As a melee rogue, I imagine I would be spending the bonus action on disengaging or dual-wielding.

Suffice it to say, I find the claims about the variety provided by Cunning Action very unconvincing. If the thief's ability to use an item as a bonus action was a core rogue feature, it might be slightly better. But even then, how much can you really do with it that's better than positioning for Sneak Attack? It would still be the same thing round after round. Before I'm inevitably misinterpreted, this isn't a claim that rogues are weak - it's claim that they're terminally boring.

[Segev]

I played a Scout Rogue up to level 6. Most of the time, Cunning Action was spent simply moving around the battlefield and hiding to secure advantage on my crossbow attacks. It might have been slightly more exciting if I'd played a melee rogue, but in that case I feel like a ranged rogue is simply better due to doing the same damage but from a safe distance. As a melee rogue, I imagine I would be spending the bonus action on disengaging or dual-wielding.

Suffice it to say, I find the claims about the variety provided by Cunning Action very unconvincing. If the thief's ability to use an item as a bonus action was a core rogue feature, it might be slightly better. But even then, how much can you really do with it that's better than positioning for Sneak Attack? It would still be the same thing round after round.

"I cast firebolt," isn't the same thing round after round? :smallconfused:

There's more to moving and attacking than just "I move. I swing. I roll damage." Even if that's literally all you're doing in terms of actions, how you move, where you move, who you attack... it's all tactical choices.

Add in more liberty to make tactical choices, like whetehr to rush in, stab, disengage, and rush out, or to dash in to stab, or to hide then sneak attack without having an ally nearby? That's a lot of options.

I think you're undervaluing it because it doesn't have a lot of different listed named abilities. I could equally undervalue spellcasting by saying, "I cast a spell," is all they do every round.

[CBAnaesthesia]

The Bard should've been a half-caster focused around the social pillar, just like Paladins are half-casters focused around combat and Rangers are half-casters focused around exploration. As it stands, their class features are absolutely eclipsed by the fact that they're a full caster who can (eventually) cherry pick spells from any list, and that frustrates me greatly. Seriously, putting Magical Secrets on a full caster was a terrible idea.
I definitely agree with this. I like the idea of Bards as a 1/2 or possibly 2/3 caster - something that parallels the 1/3 casters in a way, capping at 7th level spells at high levels - because they're meant to be a jack-of-all-trades, and importantly, master of none. As it stands in my opinion they're a jack-of-all-trades and master of all of them except for fighting (though they can get close to mastering that too with tricks like Flourishes or Swift Quiver).

Well, yes, but my point was they couldn’t figure out how to keep the base fighter simple (and avoid the 4e feel, I guess) with maneuvers included, but the simplification of the maneuver system that the Battlemaster uses isn’t versatile enough to support multiple flavors used by different subclasses (at least not without redesigning the Battlemaster, which obviously isn’t happening).
I don't see why they couldn't have included choices of "passive maneuvers" to replicate the Champion's features for people who want a simple, AD&Dish fighter.


Looking at the flourishes, they're all more powerful than most battlemaster maneuvers.

Mobile flourish: basically Pushing Attack (with NO SAVE) + extra free movement

Defensive flourish: no real comparison in maneuvers, but it'd be a pretty popular one.

Slashing flourish: Sweeping Attack but flat-out better

The reason they're not overpowered is that they're on a bard (with otherwise mediocre HP and armor and offensive melee capabilities) rather than a guy with a greatsword and 30AC. They also use up a resource from another core class feature rather than adding a brand new resource for the subclass.
[Swords Bards are] now basically just a more powerful support character rather than a daring swashbuckler guy.


Defensive Flourish could be compared to Parry but straight-up way better. It's also way better than the Defensive Duelist feat.

Bards don't have substantially worse AC than any "guy with a greatsword." With max Dex, a Bard can hit 18 AC, and a 2h fighter with Defensive style in full plate can hit a whole 19 AC (ignoring magic items, which either character could benefit from). It's actually way easier for a Swords Bard to hit 30AC than a Fighter, all he needs to do is have studded leather, 20 Dex, and roll maximum on his d12 Flourish at 15th level. The Sword Bard's melee capability is basically the same as a fighter below level 11, too, thanks to Dex-to-damage and a fighting style. I really think you are underrating how good a Sword Bard can be at the martial side of their class, at least until they run out of Inspiration dice - and at level 14 they don't even have to worry about that, either - but admittedly being a full caster on top of everything does tend to overshadow their fighting ability.

[Pleh]

This is something I get annoyed with discussing with some people in 3.PF, too: just because your class has something supernatural or extraordinary-beyond-the-guy-at-the-gym doesn't mean it's a spellcaster. It certainly doesn't mean it ceases to be "a martial character."

I agree. Simply having access to a few spells doesn't quite turn a Martial into a Gish, much less non-spell Extraordinary or Supernatural Abilities (even though 5e doesn't use that language, you know what I'm saying).

To me, a Gish is more specifically someone who wields Martial in one hand with Combat Caster in the other like a swashbuckler (not necessarily the class, just the trope) wielding a pistol and a cutlass, able to switch modes at will. I'd say SOME paladin builds and SOME ranger builds can do this, but the class doesn't automatically become a Gish build just because its options allow it to function that way. A lot of Ranger abilities are non-combat utility, and if the Ranger picks these options, their magical side doesn't really support Gish functionality and they slide back into being Martial Characters.

After all, Rogue and Fighter have options to pick up spellcasting that can potentially lead to certain levels of Gish functionality, but they are usually considered the more pure examples of Martial and not Gish.

Speak nothing of Monk or Barbarian. Monks aren't really Wuxia heroes they are half intended to portray. Maybe if they were more built like the Swordsage from Tomb of Battle, they might look more like a Gish.

[Morty]

I suppose I'm not being entirely fair to Cunning Action. It's good at what it does - provide rogues with mobility that's difficult to match. But that's the only thing it does and rogues have little in terms of options beyond the "run around and stab/shoot" stratagem it provides. I think there's a lot of wishful thinking bound up in how many possibilities it supposedly opens up.

The real question here is, should rogues get superiority dice too, or get some other kind of exploit with its own mechanics? It'd be easier if they weren't the one and only class that's not quite "martial" but also doesn't use spells (barring subclasses).

[Segev]

I suppose I'm not being entirely fair to Cunning Action. It's good at what it does - provide rogues with mobility that's difficult to match. But that's the only thing it does and rogues have little in terms of options beyond the "run around and stab/shoot" stratagem it provides. I think there's a lot of wishful thinking bound up in how many possibilities it supposedly opens up.

The real question here is, should rogues get superiority dice too, or get some other kind of exploit with its own mechanics? It'd be easier if they weren't the one and only class that's not quite "martial" but also doesn't use spells (barring subclasses).

I wouldn't object to them having a subsystem, or having an archetype with maneuvers and superiority dice.

It would require figuring out what they do in a more than "I know it when I see it" way to even begin to give them a subsystem. Maneuvers are really a combat-adjacent subsystem. So rogues would probably need something skill-adjacent.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Cunning Action begs to differ with you. >_>

That by itself makes rogues have a lot of interesting options. Add in, say, the Thief's abiltiy to climb at full speed opening up a third dimension of movement, or an Arcane Trickster's magical abilities, and rogues get a fair bit to do that's interesting. Thief still could use more, but the climb thing isn't nothing, and together with cunning action is a very versatile pair of tools.

But the key thing that made 4e unpopular was ditched in favor of a more 2e or 3e-like embrace of multiple different subsystems to represent different classes and types. 4e wasn't all bad. It had a lot of good, cool stuff in it. I think they did a good job picking and choosing what to bring forward from both 3e and 4e.



This is something I get annoyed with discussing with some people in 3.PF, too: just because your class has something supernatural or extraordinary-beyond-the-guy-at-the-gym doesn't mean it's a spellcaster. It certainly doesn't mean it ceases to be "a martial character."

Zealot barbarians have radiant damage and a perk related to spells, but aren't spellcasters. Totem Warriors have two rituals, but those don't define them, and even if you claim their totem powers are magic, they remain martial characters.

Monks are martial characters through and through, and their most spellcaster-like and least-martial subclass (4-element) is widely considered their worst. Shadow does get spells, too, but they're a specific subset that make them more stealth-master than "spellcaster." They don't even use spell slots.

The key thing that made 4e hated was the looks and nomenclature. I can't recall how many times my groups would take 4e stuff and concert it to look like 3e stuff and people who hated 4e loved it.

It was very superficial.

Plenty of 2e and 3e groups played using a grid, hex or otherwise, so saying 4e "needed" a grid as if that's a point against it doesn't work. Hell, I never heard of the concept "theater of the mind" until 5e was being worked on.

Get annoyed at it all you want, martials are non-magical classes. That's the entire point.

You have Martials, Gish (Partial-Martials or Partial Casters), and Full Casters.

Barbarians are chocked full of magic in 5e. The only non-magical barbarians off the top of my head are the berserker and the Dwarven armored one, both subclasses that get ignored because of how not-great they are.

The Monk has ki which is specifically magic in the description of ki, just not arcane or divine caster magic.

You being annoyed doesn't change the fact that the only two classes you can make without magic is the Fighter and Rogue. The barbarian has to take "meh" subclasses to not be magical so it's not completely martial.

[Segev]

The key thing that made 4e hated was the looks and nomenclature. I can't recall how many times my groups would take 4e stuff and concert it to look like 3e stuff and people who hated 4e loved it.

It was very superficial.

Plenty of 2e and 3e groups played using a grid, hex or otherwise, so saying 4e "needed" a grid as if that's a point against it doesn't work. Hell, I never heard of the concept "theater of the mind" until 5e was being worked on.I spelled out quite clearly what my issues with 4e were, and at no point did I mention "a grid" or "theater of the mind." In fact, I run my 5e game on a grid. I am not sure, therefore, what you think you're arguing against.


Get annoyed at it all you want, martials are non-magical classes. That's the entire point.No, they're non-spellcasters. Not non-magical. Otherwise, they cease to be martials the moment they pick up magic weapons or armor, or are played by a race with any inhuman features.

Or did you claim that a Fighter in 4e became non-Martial if he took the Ritual feat?


You have Martials, Gish (Partial-Martials or Partial Casters), and Full Casters.Agreed.


Barbarians are chocked full of magic in 5e. The only non-magical barbarians off the top of my head are the berserker and the Dwarven armored one, both subclasses that get ignored because of how not-great they are.But they are not spellcasters, except for two rituals that one of them gets as a ribbon. Asserting this makes them "gishes," let alone "half casters," is ... your prerogative, I suppose, but is going to conjure for people who are actually looking to play a gish the entirely wrong image, and make them quite disappointed. It also might drive off those looking to play martials who would find the subclasses quite attractive. (I have such a player playing a Zealot Barbarian in my game right now, in fact.)


The Monk has ki which is specifically magic in the description of ki, just not arcane or divine caster magic.Meaning they are not casters, and not gishes. Gishes are spellcasters who also wield weapons and use one to complement the other. Ki plays like a martial class because it is a martial class feature.

It CAN get some spellcasting; two of the subclasses get this, though even then, only one comes close to gish territory. The other has some utility backup using spell mechanics for its stealth stuff.


You being annoyed doesn't change the fact that the only two classes you can make without magic is the Fighter and Rogue. The barbarian has to take "meh" subclasses to not be magical so it's not completely martial.I am annoyed that people insist that you can't have a character with magic who is a martial class, not that you need magic to play at high levels.

I am annoyed by the Guy at the Gym fallacy, essentially.

Though your classifications of "it's got a touch of magic, so it's a gish" are...not useful for clear and cogent conversation. It's too broad and prone to conflating unrelated playstyles. Worse, likely to drive people to classes and subclasses they wouldn't be looking for, or towards classes and subclasses that will disappoint them.

[DrKerosene]

The real question here is, should rogues get superiority dice too, or get some other kind of exploit with its own mechanics? It'd be easier if they weren't the one and only class that's not quite "martial" but also doesn't use spells (barring subclasses).

I would suggest a system where they can choose to lose a sneak attack dice or two from damage (if you hit), but gain an maneuver/flourish type effect, kind of like reverse superiority dice.

Probably limited to once per round or turn, like the Bardic Flourishes.

[Joe the Rat]

I think it would have made sense.
You give them a limited pool to choose from, you give them restrictions on when it can be used (akin to the current flourishes), you give them fewer uses between rests.

Personally I liked the idea when they tried it in the UAs. it expanded the options, and could give BattleMasters another way to expand their die pools (or other classes into BattleMaster, which admittedly is already a thing). It might even have encouraged WotC to expand the maneuver list, possibly even - gasp - add advanced maneuvers behind level and/or maneuver prereqs.

[Morty]

I would suggest a system where they can choose to lose a sneak attack dice or two from damage (if you hit), but gain an maneuver/flourish type effect, kind of like reverse superiority dice.

Probably limited to once per round or turn, like the Bardic Flourishes.

I've seen it suggested, but I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with College of Swords and what resources the flourishes consume, but rogues can deliver Sneak Attack on most - sometimes all - of their attacks. So this tradeoff needs to be modest enough not to cause problems if it's used round after round, but strong enough to be worth sacrificing damage. Or it'd need another kind of limited resource.

[CBAnaesthesia]

I've seen it suggested, but I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with College of Swords and what resources the flourishes consume, but rogues can deliver Sneak Attack on most - sometimes all - of their attacks. So this tradeoff needs to be modest enough not to cause problems if it's used round after round, but strong enough to be worth sacrificing damage. Or it'd need another kind of limited resource.
Flourishes use your Bardic Inspiration dice. However, at 14th level, Sword Bards get an ability that lets them spend a d6 instead of their inspiration dice, so it is no longer a limited resource - you can just choose to make the flourish even better, a limited amount of times per rest, by spending your inspiration d12s instead of your free d6.

[DrKerosene]

I've seen it suggested, but I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with College of Swords and what resources the flourishes consume, but rogues can deliver Sneak Attack on most - sometimes all - of their attacks. So this tradeoff needs to be modest enough not to cause problems if it's used round after round, but strong enough to be worth sacrificing damage. Or it'd need another kind of limited resource.

Rogues typically are able to get Sneak Attack once per turn (and usually once per round), and Bardic Flourishes are supposed to be limited to once per turn too. Battle Masters can use one Superiority dice per attack, which means easier nova.

I have no problem with Rogue “Maneuver Dice” being more modest in effect, I’d just rather work on a trade-off system for Sneak Attack dice instead of adding another subsystem with different dice.

[Snowbluff]

One of the big issues with 3.5E was that casters could basically do all the martial stuff better than martials, and often from fairly low levels (depending on your stats and your system mastery, or simply make martials an unnecessary part of the game).

People often state that casters were just better at martial stuff, which is true, but this took a lot of work. Casters were both harder to build and play, but also more rewarding. The simple fact of the matter is a core fighter would just basically just do the same thing each turn. Later books expanded their options greatly, by bringing in maneuvers and other abilities that could change how you operate your turn.

5e maneuvers do this, but for only one subclass. A lot of the time, your turn is basically the same, attack action, with very little decision making. The weakness was recognized, but the solution was only applied sparingly, with the other improvement being the spellcasting variants of classes.

Your mileage may vary, of course, but I'm definitely the kind of player and DM who favors having "more buttons to push" for the players.

[Witty Username]

Having played swords bard, I think there is some argument that the added pieces of swords bard are easy to keep track of, and defensive flourish it somewhat critical for the swords melee combat as written. Also, there is something to be said that the flourishes are all strongly tied to what the swords bard is thematically. Could this be replicated with the PHB maneuvers, eh, Evasive footwork, sweeping attack and pushing attack are close but weaker overall. This also opens the question of using superiority dice or keeping it tied to inspiration, Which is either accepting things as weaker, or adding another resource to track as well as opening maneuver + inspiration which swords bard normally has problems with.
I do not think anything needs to change.

On the other points, more classes having access to maneuver/maneuver-like abilities sounds like a reasonable idea to me.