Making other ability scores matter for fighters

[BurgerBeast]

I’ve been thinking lately (somewhat inspired by other threads) about how to make other ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) matter for fighters.

An idea has occurred to me. I’ll outline it here. It is in regard to the Battle Master subclass only. The idea is to provide bonuses based on these other abilities that at the very least cause a player to consider increasing those abilities.

I’m wanting to avoid conversations about how these ideas may create balance issues across classes and focus more on whether they can create viable alternatives to, for example, always dumping Intelligence.

Here are the ideas:

Intelligence: (1) you learn additional maneuvers equal to your intelligence modifier. (Since maneuvers are problematic because they get worse as you level, as an alternative idea, there could be optional tiered maneuvers, and intelligence modifier would set the cap on the tier available (minimum 1)).

Wisdom: apply your wisdom modifier to the number of superiority dice.

Charisma: not sure yet. Maybe you get extra superiority dice that must be spent on commanders strike, distracting strike, goading attack, menacing strike, or rally. Or maybe your Charisma modifier adds to your save DC on all maneuvers. Or maybe it adds to your uses of indomitable (this alone doesn’t seem significant enough to motivate investing in Charisma).

Thoughts?

[Dr. Cliché]

I'd be wary of making Fighters need 2+ mental stats. Tying aspects of Manuvers to Int *or* Wis would be enough, I think.

Then again, I also think that *all* Fighters should have had Manuvers as a starting point. :smalltongue:

[BurgerBeast]

I'd be wary of making Fighters need 2+ mental stats. Tying aspects of Manuvers to Int *or* Wis would be enough, I think.

Then again, I also think that *all* Fighters should have had Manuvers as a starting point. :smalltongue:

The point is that they don’t need them. With 8s in all three mental stats, they play as is. High mental stats add bonus abilities.

The idea would be that an extra superiority die might be worth giving up +1 to hit and damage, for example.

Edit: or, are you saying that, even granting that, it ends up feeling like they need it?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

If you want to make a Fighter with Int, go Eldritch Knight. If you want to make a Fighter with Wis, make a Ranger. If you want to make a Fighter with Cha, make a Paladin.

[False God]

I’ve been thinking lately (somewhat inspired by other threads) about how to make other ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) matter for fighters.

An idea has occurred to me. I’ll outline it here. It is in regard to the Battle Master subclass only. The idea is to provide bonuses based on these other abilities that at the very least cause a player to consider increasing those abilities.

I’m wanting to avoid conversations about how these ideas may create balance issues across classes and focus more on whether they can create viable alternatives to, for example, always dumping Intelligence.

Here are the ideas:

Intelligence: (1) you learn additional maneuvers equal to your intelligence modifier. (Since maneuvers are problematic because they get worse as you level, as an alternative idea, there could be optional tiered maneuvers, and intelligence modifier would set the cap on the tier available (minimum 1)).

Wisdom: apply your wisdom modifier to the number of superiority dice.

Charisma: not sure yet. Maybe you get extra superiority dice that must be spent on commanders strike, distracting strike, goading attack, menacing strike, or rally. Or maybe your Charisma modifier adds to your save DC on all maneuvers. Or maybe it adds to your uses of indomitable (this alone doesn’t seem significant enough to motivate investing in Charisma).

Thoughts?

Int: more maneuvers - obvs you're more clever, you know how to do more stuff.
Wis: "Boost" dice - For every +1 you get a 1d4 "boost die" which you may choose to add 1 of to your maneuver roll(after you see the result of your maneuver die). You're wiser about how and when to use your maneuvers.
Cha: for each +1 you get a bonus maneuver die, also applies to the "boost dice". (roughly comparable to the feat if taken multiple times)

Maybe switch cha and wis, but still. KISS. Simple effects that enhance existing abilities. Really do wish all the classes leveraged more of the scores, even if only to provide "side benefits". Would go a long way to reduce min-maxing.

Assuming a character somehow manages to max all their mental stats they have 14 maneuvers, 11 superiority dice, and 10 boost dice by 15th level.

But I mean, you'd need to have 20's in 3 different stats. You could easily spread the love (14's) and have 11 maneuvers, 8 superiority dice and 7 boost dice. Still easily enough to keep battlemastering on throughout a fight. Considering the fighter's number of ASI's, and if you were a standard human, having good "battle stats" str/dex/con and "good mental stats" should really be doable.

[Dr. Cliché]

The point is that they don’t need them. With 8s in all three mental stats, they play as is. High mental stats add bonus abilities.

The idea would be that an extra superiority die might be worth giving up +1 to hit and damage, for example.

Edit: or, are you saying that, even granting that, it ends up feeling like they need it?

No, what I meant is that I like your ideas but I'd only want to implement one of them.

As in, I'd want to make a Fighter dependant on Int *or* Wisdom, but not both.

I appreciate that the current situation (with them being dependant on neither) is far from ideal, I just think making them require 2 different mental stats - especially when casters only require one - is pushing them too far in the other direction.

[BurgerBeast]

No, what I meant is that I like your ideas but I'd only want to implement one of them.

As in, I'd want to make a Fighter dependant on Int *or* Wisdom, but not both.

I appreciate that the current situation (with them being dependant on neither) is far from ideal, I just think making them require 2 different mental stats - especially when casters only require one - is pushing them too far in the other direction.

Okay. And I’m saying there’s no dependence. No mental stats are required. The player who dumps all three mental stats loses nothing. He gets the PHB Battle Master. (But probably some bonus abilities because he’s likely to get a +1 in one of his mental stats.)

If a player chooses to lower one of his other stats, he gets something extra to roughly account for the loss of Str, Dex, or Con.

[Dr. Cliché]

Okay. And I’m saying there’s no dependence. No mental stats are required. The player who dumps all three mental stats loses nothing. He gets the PHB Battle Master. (But probably some bonus abilities because he’s likely to get a +1 in one of his mental stats.)

If a player chooses to lower one of his other stats, he gets something extra to roughly account for the loss of Str, Dex, or Con.

I don't know how to get my point across any more clearly so I'm just going to drop out at this point. :smalltongue:

Best of luck.

[Pex]

Nice idea on paper. Doesn't work in practice. Making a character MAD makes him useless. When he needs everything he's good at nothing because he cannot be good at everything while trying to be. A fighter only needing ST or DX (with CO for hit points) is not a problem that needs fixing.

[MoiMagnus]

Nice idea on paper. Doesn't work in practice. Making a character MAD makes him useless. When he needs everything he's good at nothing because he cannot be good at everything while trying to be. A fighter only needing ST or DX (with CO for hit points) is not a problem that needs fixing.

I don't see how adding straight up buffs can make a character less useful.

With those suggestions, the fighter can still ignore the other abilities and be SAD, remaining as strong as he was before the changes. For me, the goal was to make so that when the player or choose to be suboptimally MAD for fun or RP reasons, it gets some compensation bonuses so that he is not as much sub-optimal as he would have been.

Though I agree in general that SADness is so much baked into D&D that the system would require some serious rethinking to have MAD builds that feel right.

[Skylivedk]

If you want to make a Fighter with Int, go Eldritch Knight. If you want to make a Fighter with Wis, make a Ranger. If you want to make a Fighter with Cha, make a Paladin.

Why are you commenting? How are you trying to help OP?


Nice idea on paper. Doesn't work in practice. Making a character MAD makes him useless. When he needs everything he's good at nothing because he cannot be good at everything while trying to be. A fighter only needing ST or DX (with CO for hit points) is not a problem that needs fixing.
But he is not MADder than the standard battle master for the same power level. His power ceiling is just higher.

@OP: I like it. I would use int for number of manoeuvres, WIS for added accuracy/effect/rerolls of sup die and charisma for extra uses/buff of team abilities as suggested previously.

Maybe not with the exact math of the boost die, but I like the idea.

In longer games, I find that the more unfun parts of the battle master is that they don't get better manoeuvres later, so maybe you'd give a look to adding manoeuvres that require multiple sup dice for more complex actions.

[Pex]

You're giving incentive to use it. If the player uses it he weakens his fighting prowess. If he doesn't use it he gets an artificial sense of loss that only exists because you made the option he's not getting available.

[False God]

You're giving incentive to use it. If the player uses it he weakens his fighting prowess. If he doesn't use it he gets an artificial sense of loss that only exists because you made the option he's not getting available.

So? The entire game is built around opportunity costs. Every choice a player makes in character creation means there's a choice he doesn't get to make or is actively locked out of. Playing a Battlemaster means you can't be a Champion. Being a Human means you're not an elf.

Stat-based choices would at least remain open to the player the entire game. He starts off with a 20 Str? Spends the next ASI's maxing Con? Maybe he wants to branch out now and have his character be smarter or wiser or charming. Any investment in any mental score is rewarded, even a simple +1.

[Rolero]

The only incentive you should need to invest in "suboptimal" abilities should be roleplaying, not a mechanical advantage.
Say you want you fighter to be a leader of men, a cunning general or a philosopher sword saint. There you have it, a reason to invest in Charisma, Intelligence or Widsom.

If the only reason to assign points in abilities not linked to class features is to get numerical bonuses, you are not making a character, you are just looking for a way to improve your numbers.

[Anymage]

The only incentive you should need to invest in "suboptimal" abilities should be roleplaying, not a mechanical advantage.
Say you want you fighter to be a leader of men, a cunning general or a philosopher sword saint. There you have it, a reason to invest in Charisma, Intelligence or Widsom.

If the only reason to assign points in abilities not linked to class features is to get numerical bonuses, you are not making a character, you are just looking for a way to improve your numbers.

Except if you're worse at your main job in order to be good at your side gig, it's worth asking why the party didn't just pick someone better at the primary role. And from a pure game perspective, failing more often at what should be your shtick while other players who invested in their prime stats do okay will start to annoy after a while.

The bigger question, IMO, is how much we want any character to be able to benefit from stats other than their prime stat, con, and dex. Fighters just get the focus here because they cram a lot of concepts into a package that works best if you just focus on str or dex. 3e let everyone have some benefit from off stats. (But didn't do enough to offset all the perks of sinking everything into your prime stat, which is why SAD vs. MAD was a noticeable thing even back then.) 4e was able to split concepts like smart leader/charismatic leader into their own class and let every class have two stats that they wanted to focus on. In 5e you could probably get away with subclasses that got benefits from one other stat, but that's as far as I think you could reasonably go and there's still a noticeable difference between how a pure SAD class can ramp up power vs. a dual-attribute dependent one can.

[Rolero]

Well, I guess you just validated my point.

My two cents: If the game is focused in dungeon crawling, combat and meatgrinding, sure, homebrew some add ons and try them on the table. If everyone is having fun with that, go for it.

If your group value roleplaying, characters with personality quirks and trying to be realistically consistent in how a pc should act based on his/her stats (like, giving a grandiose speech in the kings court while you manipulate the audience having Int and Cha 8 and without the proper skills) then maybe, that would not be such a great idea.

[BurgerBeast]

The only incentive you should need to invest in "suboptimal" abilities should be roleplaying, not a mechanical advantage.
Say you want you fighter to be a leader of men, a cunning general or a philosopher sword saint. There you have it, a reason to invest in Charisma, Intelligence or Widsom.

Except that if those investments produce no actual in-game result, then they don’t do that. For example, if having 9 Charisma is mechanicallly no different than having 18 Charisma, then your character is not a philosophical sword saint. Or he is, but the guy with 9 Charisma is, too. [Edit: that would be Wisdom, not Charisma]


If the only reason to assign points in abilities not linked to class features is to get numerical bonuses, you are not making a character, you are just looking for a way to improve your numbers.

It’s pretty disingenuous to assume motives.

There’s a reasonable case to made that someone who is born with 10 strength but 16 intelligence can leverage his intelligence to fight better than someone with 10 strength and 10 intelligence.

It is further reasonable to recognize that being a “smart” fighter very likely amounts to employing a different fighting style than being a “strong” fighter.

It is also reasonable to prefer a game in which the mechanics and narrative interact in a way that is consistent and coherent. This can be true without the advocate necessarily being a power gamer.*

* in fact, the exact opposite must be true. A power gamer would want SAD classes exclusively, because then you can maximize your class abilities. As soon as there are trade-offs, you cannot have everything.

[Tanarii]

The only incentive you should need to invest in "suboptimal" abilities should be roleplaying, not a mechanical advantage.
Say you want you fighter to be a leader of men, a cunning general or a philosopher sword saint. There you have it, a reason to invest in Charisma, Intelligence or Widsom.

If the only reason to assign points in abilities not linked to class features is to get numerical bonuses, you are not making a character, you are just looking for a way to improve your numbers.
Since every ability score already comes with a numerical advantage of being higher for every character, and those ability scores are what make you good at things like "be[ing] a leader of men, a cunning general or a philosopher sword saint" in the pinch when an ability check is called for, roleplaying is hardly the only incentive.

Putting a high score in an ability makes you better at something already. That's an incentive both the OP And you missed.

[Skylivedk]

The only incentive you should need to invest in "suboptimal" abilities should be roleplaying, not a mechanical advantage.
Say you want you fighter to be a leader of men, a cunning general or a philosopher sword saint. There you have it, a reason to invest in Charisma, Intelligence or Widsom.

If the only reason to assign points in abilities not linked to class features is to get numerical bonuses, you are not making a character, you are just looking for a way to improve your numbers.

Smells like Stormwind. It's perfectly legit to want more than 1 or 2 stats to matter from a mechanical point of view, and Intelligence especially has been super shafted in 5e.

Personally I loved that Pillars of Eternity made such a wide range of abilities have potential applications for the different characters and would love something similar if simpler in a TTRPG

[Tanarii]

Thoughts?
My first thought is, as I previously mentioned, all ability scores already matter for everyone because of ability checks. If your DM isn't calling for off-stat checks, that's not a game system issue. If they're making them too hard so you don't risk off-stat checks that is a game system issue, because "Easy" being DC 10 and "Medium" being DC 15 is ridiculous. But that's an easier fix than homebrewing fighters.

But also, what's the goal here? Fighters are designed to be SAD. They go Str and Con, or occasional Dex and Con. The Str/Dex score that isn't primary gets dumped to 8. So now they've got 13, 12, and 10 to put in Int, Wis and Cha. Basically they're getting +1 to two of them and 0 to the other. That's a minimal difference, and also a minimal modifier bonus.

Is the goal to make them so they are MAD and do not use Con? Is it to give them a minimal +1 combat bonus somewhere?

Lastly, why Fighters? They're hardly the only SAD class where their primary and con are 'all that matter'. More than half the classes are SAD.

[BurgerBeast]

My first thought is, as I previously mentioned, all ability scores already matter for everyone because of ability checks. If your DM isn't calling for off-stat checks, that's not a game system issue. If they're making them too hard so you don't risk off-stat checks that is a game system issue, because "Easy" being DC 10 and "Medium" being DC 15 is ridiculous. But that's an easier fix than homebrewing fighters.

I agree, but this seems tangential to the conversation.


But also, what's the goal here? Fighters are designed to be SAD. They go Str and Con, or occasional Dex and Con. The Str/Dex score that isn't primary gets dumped to 8. So now they've got 13, 12, and 10 to put in Int, Wis and Cha. Basically they're getting +1 to two of them and 0 to the other. That's a minimal difference, and also a minimal modifier bonus.

The goal here is to be able to model a trained fighter who is not gifted with the attributes commonly attributed to fighters.

Exciting narratives are full of unlikely heroes and people who answer a calling despite not being the stereotypical best fit for the job.

In the movie Braveheart, for example, William Wallace was a formidable fighter despite his sidekick, Hamish, having the superior Strength and Constitution. Now, it’s true that William was a superior leader and was better educated, but that is not what I’m talking about. William was arguably just as good as Hamish at fighting.

Reality has similar examples. There are definitely some boxers who are clearly Str-based and others who are arguably Dex-based... but there are still others who are better boxers despite being weaker and slower. They use smarts and technique. (Granted this can be modelled by experience, and that would work for an old veteran who was not as strong or fast - but there are still real-life boxers of similar experience that manage to outperform their stronger, faster counterparts.)


Is the goal to make them so they are MAD and do not use Con? Is it to give them a minimal +1 combat bonus somewhere?

No. The idea was to leave the typical build as is, and then to layer trade-offs so that a player who wants to play a smart fighter (for example) can play one, gaining relevant benefits that make sense that do not amount to the same benefits that a Str Con fighter gets.


Lastly, why Fighters? They're hardly the only SAD class where their primary and con are 'all that matter'. More than half the classes are SAD.

The idea is not meant to be only for fighters. It’s just an initial example, serving potentially as a proof-of-concept, and a relatively easy-entry example because the concepts are relatively familiar.

- - -

The point was made higher up the thread that the naysayers who claim it limits options are already accepting limited options.

One option is to give an off-or-on choice. Take this fear or that feat. Be this race or that race. Be this class or that class. This subclass or that subclass. This maneuver or that maneuver. This spell or that spell.

Another option is to give multiple options but tie their effectiveness to another resource so that you’re still better at some than others.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

If you want to make a Fighter with Int, go Eldritch Knight. If you want to make a Fighter with Wis, make a Ranger. If you want to make a Fighter with Cha, make a Paladin.

Why are you commenting? How are you trying to help OP?

I was making the same point that half the people in this thread are making. With 27 point buy being standard, ability scores are at a premium. Updating an archetype to be MAD only dooms it to mediocrity. Adding flat buffs that apply if you have high mental stats is poor for balance, especially if rolling for stats. I was pointing out that there are already warrior-type classes that benefit from each mental stat without needing to change how the Fighter works.

[Luccan]

Fighters generally not needing mental stats isn't a bug, it's a feature. Same with Barbarians or similarly Rangers and Paladins only needing one. It's a deliberate choice by the designers to help avoid some of the issues of 3.x in particular. I'd also argue fighters usually do need a decent Wisdom since they don't get proficiency in those saves and they may want a good Perception.

I can get behind bonuses for less used stats, but it needs to be a universal thing.

[Makorel]

For an exercise like this I would recommend using the Paladin as a model. The Paladin is the only class in 5e that succeeds in scaling better when having multiple attributes without being multiple-attribute dependent. Let's break down why:

- The easiest way to be effective in combat is to deal lots of damage.
- Paladins are great at this because they can smite with their attacks, ergo, they only need to focus on strength (or dex) to pull their weight.
- Even so the Paladin gets Aura of Warding, a Charisma based ability that gives bonuses to saving throws and probably one of the best defensive abilities in the game.
- A Paladin with a high Charisma stat for AoW will always be better than a Paladin without, but no one would say a Paladin with low Charisma isn't a good addition to a team.
- Also certain Paladin spells key off of Charisma without being the "meat" of Paladin's combat ability adding some utility to having good Chr.

So what does all this information tell us? To me it says that if we want to make a character care about other stats without having them be dependent on them, don't make those stats a part of that character's offense. Focus on making it a part of their utility and defense. There are several ways we can do this, and I will be using Intelligence as the stat since Eldritch Knight is already a thing:

- Adding Int to Indomitable, giving Fighters a similar buff to the Paladin.
- Samurai gives you a persuasion bonus based off your Wisdom, filling the role of the Face Fighter.
- In this vein you could probably get away with adding double a mental stat to certain checks.
- Utility Spells based off of Int. Eldritch Knight sort of does this but is bogged down by spell selection restrictions, low spell slots in general, and the fact that some good spells don't need Int.
- Notably the Fighter gets more ASIs, so any sort of extra benefit from mental stats is more achievable by a Fighter than a Paladin ironically.

For the Battle Master specifically I would personally keep their maneuvers free from needing other stats besides their main one but add some kind of secondary ability to Know Your Enemy. Maybe you can assess someone instantly up to Int Mod times and you get a general sense of how they fight giving you some kind of defense or saving throw advantage while fighting them, or even just that you're better at talking them avoiding a fight altogether.

[Dienekes]

Doing something like this is not really all that hard to do as a base design stand point.

Adding riders to make your rallying-style features focus on your Charisma. Or perhaps allow maneuvers that are about tricking your opponents.
Add "tactical" maneuvers for intelligence.
Etc.

Hell I've played games where literally every Abiltiy Score was useful for every class in some way, and the player got to choose what kind of warrior/mage/rogue/thing they were playing.
Playing the High Int Low Str Fighter was possible and fun. It essentially turned them into a Warlord. It was done by making fewer very broad classes.

But 5e isn't really designed like that. They went with every class really only needing one, maybe two ability scores and then constitution for defense and you're done.

If you really want to make fighters work with more ability scores making subclasses that focus on one mental stat apiece would probably be the way most structurally fitting with the rest of 5e.

Or go big and rewrite every class so they can use every ability score. It would basically require making a whole new game. But I for one can't wait to see the Muscle Wizard in action.

[TigerT20]

I was making the same point that half the people in this thread are making. With 27 point buy being standard, ability scores are at a premium. Updating an archetype to be MAD only dooms it to mediocrity. Adding flat buffs that apply if you have high mental stats is poor for balance, especially if rolling for stats. I was pointing out that there are already warrior-type classes that benefit from each mental stat without needing to change how the Fighter works.

What about the people that dont want to be magical?

The 'intelligent Fighter' fantasy often isn't 'Has sword but can also shoot fireballs'. It's more often characters like Roy :roy:

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

What about the people that dont want to be magical?

The 'intelligent Fighter' fantasy often isn't 'Has sword but can also shoot fireballs'. It's more often characters like Roy :roy:

You don't need to change anything mechanically about the Fighter class to make one like Roy. His Int score doesn't have any mechanical benefit for his ability to fight. He's able to figure things out on the fly, which is more player intelligence than character intelligence, but that's the extent of its benefit for him. He may have Combat Expertise given he's in 3.x, and he has more skill points, but that's it.

You can make an Eldritch Knight without picking flashy spells. Things like Absorb Elements, Shield, even Thunder Wave can be reflavored as martial prowess, or even something else like The Force. Fireball isn't even good any more at the level you would gain it, you want defensive, utility, and save-or-lose spells, especially once you get Eldritch Strike. EK is the smart fighter because he's prepared for just about any situation that a non-EK fighter wouldn't be able to handle.

[Pex]

If you want to make a Fighter with Int, go Eldritch Knight. If you want to make a Fighter with Wis, make a Ranger. If you want to make a Fighter with Cha, make a Paladin.

This, and let role play take care of the rest.

Ranger has its own issues, so maybe monk.

[Nifft]

What about the people that dont want to be magical?

The 'intelligent Fighter' fantasy often isn't 'Has sword but can also shoot fireballs'. It's more often characters like Roy :roy:

I'd be in favor of a Roy-friendly Warlord subclass which gives Int perks to a Fighter, and also commander perks.

[Skylivedk]

I read OP:
"An idea has occurred to me. I’ll outline it here. It is in regard to the Battle Master subclass only. The idea is to provide bonuses based on these other abilities that at the very least cause a player to consider increasing those abilities.

I’m wanting to avoid conversations about how these ideas may create balance issues across classes and focus more on whether they can create viable alternatives to, for example, always dumping Intelligence."


I was making the same point that half the people in this thread are making. With 27 point buy being standard, ability scores are at a premium. Updating an archetype to be MAD only dooms it to mediocrity. Adding flat buffs that apply if you have high mental stats is poor for balance, especially if rolling for stats. I was pointing out that there are already warrior-type classes that benefit from each mental stat without needing to change how the Fighter works.


This, and let role play take care of the rest.

Ranger has its own issues, so maybe monk.
No offense, Biffoniacus_Furiou and Pex, but I don't see how you help the OP. I'm pretty sure OP knows about the other classes. They're kinda right next to the Fighter in the book.

As for other uses, freestyle:

Intelligence could give tactical boosts where you can reposition allies a bit (as a reaction or bonus action?)

Wisdom mod per short/long rest you could use Know Your Enemy much much faster: as an action/bonus action/reaction instead of taking a minute.

Your second wind hits cha mod extra targets (I know, trampling all over PDK; don't mind, PDK is long dead and turned to compost in my gaming experience)
Cha mod can give extra reactions to allies (but only for AoOs).

Liking any of it?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Intelligence could give tactical boosts where you can reposition allies a bit (as a reaction or bonus action?)

Wisdom mod per short/long rest you could use Know Your Enemy much much faster: as an action/bonus action/reaction instead of taking a minute.

Your second wind hits cha mod extra targets (I know, trampling all over PDK; don't mind, PDK is long dead and turned to compost in my gaming experience)
Cha mod can give extra reactions to allies (but only for AoOs).

Liking any of it?

Maybe allow an Insight check to get a single piece of knowledge instead of two from a Know Your Enemy type effect (DC based on your opponent's proficiency bonus? deception skill bonus?) as an action, limited to once per opponent? Allow Fighters to do it as a bonus action with advantage once per short rest? That would still key off Wis, but be one of those universal things that anyone can do normally.

Adding additional effects to skill checks isn't exactly going to help a Fighter though, having only two base skill proficiencies. I really really don't like handing out extra skill proficiencies, but given the training rules on PHB p187 you can potentially gain as many language and tool proficiencies as you want. Maybe allow that to also be able to grant additional skill proficiencies, but no more than something like two less than your Int bonus. So Int 16 means you can train into one new skill proficiency. But there's an item that grants Int 19 which would surely get passed around for this purpose, so it wouldn't even be rewarding someone who puts a high score there. And that's also the issue you run into with handing out bonuses for having a high Int score, that's an uncommon item because so few classes can even benefit from that stat.

Second Wind hitting Cha mod additional (adjacent?) targets is actually pretty good. I don't like anything that gives extra actions though, including bonus actions or reactions, for obvious reasons. A Rogue getting extra sneak attacks with Sentinel and/or from an Order Cleric is powerful enough when he only has one reaction each turn.

Consider what previous editions did for a Fighter with high mental stats. In 3.x you maybe need Int for Combat Expertise, and more skill points, and Wis for will saves, and all three for some skill checks, but that's it. In 2e it was even less useful to have high mental stats on a Fighter. We did have other warrior classes in 3.x that got more benefit out of one or more mental stats, like Warblade, but again you wouldn't be playing a Fighter in that case.

The problem you run into with adding benefits to a class for other stats is that you need to make sure it's functional with both low and high mental stats, which is very difficult to do without making everything you add extremely situational (limit extra Second Wind targets to adjacent allies). It needs to be left untouched if all those stats are 10 or lower, but it also needs to not be overpowered if the character gets a Headband of Intellect, or if he rolls really well and puts a 16 or higher in one or more of those. On top of that, it needs to not look to new players like the class actually needs those stats to be high, which is most likely why Fighters are so one-sided with what stats are important.

Wis is worthwhile for saving throws, especially with Resilient (which you have the feats to afford). Int becomes useful if you go EK, and not just for minor reasons. Cha isn't going to be useful unless you make a different kind of warrior (Paladin or Hexblade, whichever you're into). If you don't like the default flavor of either, Oath of Conquest is basically a warlord (Lay on Hands: I didn't give you permission to die!), and Oathbraker is also pretty strong.

[Pex]

I read OP:
"An idea has occurred to me. I’ll outline it here. It is in regard to the Battle Master subclass only. The idea is to provide bonuses based on these other abilities that at the very least cause a player to consider increasing those abilities.

I’m wanting to avoid conversations about how these ideas may create balance issues across classes and focus more on whether they can create viable alternatives to, for example, always dumping Intelligence."




No offense, Biffoniacus_Furiou and Pex, but I don't see how you help the OP. I'm pretty sure OP knows about the other classes. They're kinda right next to the Fighter in the book.

As for other uses, freestyle:

Intelligence could give tactical boosts where you can reposition allies a bit (as a reaction or bonus action?)

Wisdom mod per short/long rest you could use Know Your Enemy much much faster: as an action/bonus action/reaction instead of taking a minute.

Your second wind hits cha mod extra targets (I know, trampling all over PDK; don't mind, PDK is long dead and turned to compost in my gaming experience)
Cha mod can give extra reactions to allies (but only for AoOs).

Liking any of it?

Helping by saying the idea won't work. Making all ability scores matter for a class to do its thing prevents the class from doing its thing. If the character won't use new stuff because it takes away from what he already does then there's no point to having them.

[BurgerBeast]

Helping by saying the idea won't work. Making all ability scores matter for a class to do its thing prevents the class from doing its thing. If the character won't use new stuff because it takes away from what he already does then there's no point to having them.

There is no evidence that you understand the idea at all. None.

For example, nothing I suggested prevents a Battle Master from doing its thing. Any Battle Master you can make under the current ruleset is either unaffected by the change, or gains abilities.

Please tell me what, exactly, my suggestion “takes away from what he already does.”

What are you talking about?

[HPisBS]

Here's some subclass - and even class - agnostic options:

- Int mod times / long rest, you may crit on a weapon attack with a roll of 19 on the die. (Champions may similarly expand their crit range like this, but only ½ Int mod times / long rest.)

Thematically, this would represent using your understanding of armor, anatomy, and/or martial styles to get a decisive hit in. Mechanically, it's Int instead of Wis just because Wis (Perception) is already so much more helpful as a tertiary stat.

- Cha mod times / long rest, you may use your reaction when an enemy makes a melee attack against you to attempt to intimidate it, causing it to flinch rather than properly follow through on its attack. Make a contested Cha (Intimidation) vs Wis (Insight) check. If you succeed, the enemy has disadvantage on that attack roll.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

There is no evidence that you understand the idea at all. None.

For example, nothing I suggested prevents a Battle Master from doing its thing. Any Battle Master you can make under the current ruleset is either unaffected by the change, or gains abilities.

Please tell me what, exactly, my suggestion “takes away from what he already does.”

What are you talking about?

What if a Fighter is starting at a slightly higher level and gets an uncommon item. Instead of a +1 weapon, he picks a Headband of Intellect because he sees that going from Int 8 to Int 19 will give him +4 to whatever thing you've added. Now half the monsters he fights have resistance to his damage. It literally took something away from what he was already supposed to be doing.

Making mental stats matter makes it so you have an opportunity cost for maxing out Str, Dex, and Con at the expense of those stats. It makes it so new players get confused about which stats the class needs. Putting higher stats on Int, Wis, and Cha is going to mean not putting as high a stat on Str, Dex, and Con, so it does take away from what the class is designed to do.

[TigerT20]

What if a Fighter is starting at a slightly higher level and gets an uncommon item. Instead of a +1 weapon, he picks a Headband of Intellect because he sees that going from Int 8 to Int 19 will give him +4 to whatever thing you've added. Now half the monsters he fights have resistance to his damage. It literally took something away from what he was already supposed to be doing.

Making mental stats matter makes it so you have an opportunity cost for maxing out Str, Dex, and Con at the expense of those stats. It makes it so new players get confused about which stats the class needs. Putting higher stats on Int, Wis, and Cha is going to mean not putting as high a stat on Str, Dex, and Con, so it does take away from what the class is designed to do.

I don't think there are that many monsters at levels where you only start with one (uncommon) magic item. As well, said fighter can still stand up to those monsters with manoeuvres or buffing the party with the ideas above. Or just spamming Commander's Strike.

(Also... aren't +1 weapons rare? I'm pretty sure they're different rarities)

[Skylivedk]

What if a Fighter is starting at a slightly higher level and gets an uncommon item. Instead of a +1 weapon, he picks a Headband of Intellect because he sees that going from Int 8 to Int 19 will give him +4 to whatever thing you've added. Now half the monsters he fights have resistance to his damage. It literally took something away from what he was already supposed to be doing.

Making mental stats matter makes it so you have an opportunity cost for maxing out Str, Dex, and Con at the expense of those stats. It makes it so new players get confused about which stats the class needs. Putting higher stats on Int, Wis, and Cha is going to mean not putting as high a stat on Str, Dex, and Con, so it does take away from what the class is designed to do.

I don't see the problem.

A) Don't use any rules created in this thread with new players
B) if you are not here to help make tertiary stats more relevant to the Fighter, I don't think you're helping OP (@BurgerBeast correct me if I'm wrong).


@topic:
Since wisdom is the best of the mental stats for the fighter, I'd make its Battle Master but the weakest, so if you want extra sup die from a stat, I think you can flavour it as force of personality/relentlessness and tie it to charisma

[Pex]

There is no evidence that you understand the idea at all. None.

For example, nothing I suggested prevents a Battle Master from doing its thing. Any Battle Master you can make under the current ruleset is either unaffected by the change, or gains abilities.

Please tell me what, exactly, my suggestion “takes away from what he already does.”

What are you talking about?

By having to increase IN, WI, CH to use the new stuff he loses the ST, DX, CO he needs to fight and use his battle master maneuvers to hit, damage, survive, and saving throw DC for his maneuvers. +1/-1 makes a difference.

[ZRN]

I think the Inspiring Leader feat is a decent example of how you can reward higher mental stats without requiring spellcasting. Would you ever take +2 Cha instead of +2 Str just to give your party an extra 1 temp HP? No, but it does make charisma at least relevant.

I do wish we had more feats like that, spread across Wis and Int as well, along with perhaps feats that integrate non-physical skills into combat more - stuff like "make a perception check as a bonus action to get advantage on your next attack."

The "problem" isn't that fighters are SAD; it's that being smart or wise or charming is a big part of the schtick for many warriors in fiction, and it's kind of a shame that the fighter class in 5e doesn't really mechanically engage with that as well as it could. It should be a primary goal of class/subclass design to give players mechanics that reflect their character concepts.

[Dienekes]

By having to increase IN, WI, CH to use the new stuff he loses the ST, DX, CO he needs to fight and use his battle master maneuvers to hit, damage, survive, and saving throw DC for his maneuvers. +1/-1 makes a difference.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true, but it is more to do with framing of information than anything else. If it’s clear that these are some slight benefits for your character’s other ability scores that in no way replace your primary stats it’s fine. It just gives fighter a reason to spend their copious ASIs on after they max out Str/Dex and Con.

To use an example, ToB. The Warblade has a few benefits for high Int. I have never seen anyone sacrificing their Str/Dex or Con to bump up their Int instead. But part of that is the benefits were nice, but anyone who gave it a second’s thought would see that their primary stats were more effective.

Or it’s a video game but Pillars of Eternity has every stat designed to be mechanically useful for every class. It gets away with it by being upfront which classes should focus where and which just stats just give fringe benefits if you want to mix it up. Mind you that game being a video game allows more mechanical complexity and minutia.

But the principle can apply to any rpg really.

[ZRN]

By having to increase IN, WI, CH to use the new stuff he loses the ST, DX, CO he needs to fight and use his battle master maneuvers to hit, damage, survive, and saving throw DC for his maneuvers. +1/-1 makes a difference.

I don't think we need to make it so that +2 Int is better than +2 in their primary stat for "smart" fighters, but as a 5e fighter you're probably capped at 20 in your primary stat by like level 6. And a Dex-based fighter doesn't really need Str and vice versa. Obviously CON is important for fighters, but it's important for everyone.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for a dex-based "smart fighter" to prefer Int to Str/Con once his Dex is maxed.

[BurgerBeast]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Some useful ideas.


What if a Fighter is starting at a slightly higher level and gets an uncommon item. Instead of a +1 weapon, he picks a Headband of Intellect because he sees that going from Int 8 to Int 19 will give him +4 to whatever thing you've added. Now half the monsters he fights have resistance to his damage. It literally took something away from what he was already supposed to be doing.

Making mental stats matter makes it so you have an opportunity cost for maxing out Str, Dex, and Con at the expense of those stats. It makes it so new players get confused about which stats the class needs. Putting higher stats on Int, Wis, and Cha is going to mean not putting as high a stat on Str, Dex, and Con, so it does take away from what the class is designed to do.

I don’t know how this example is specifically relevant to this thread. Any player in any game can choose poorly when selecting magic items. Those choices can have consequences, from trivial to catastrophic. No one is denying that.

A player in a regular game might choose to boost Charisma to get more mileage out of his Charisma-based maneuvers, instead of choosing a +1 weapon. There’s little difference there.

Also, the opposite is possible. In either case the players may not regret the choice, and may simply benefit from the choice at no cost at all.

We’re not making any progress and I’d rather discuss the intended point of the thread.


By having to increase IN, WI, CH to use the new stuff he loses the ST, DX, CO he needs to fight and use his battle master maneuvers to hit, damage, survive, and saving throw DC for his maneuvers. +1/-1 makes a difference.

You continue to say things like “have to” and “must.”

No Battle Master will “have to” increase Int, Wis, or Cha. The class functions exactly the same as it does without increasing those stats. Exactly the same.

Since he doesn’t “have to,” your point is moot.

Also, there’s no “new stuff.” There’s extra uses of the same stuff.

I suppose if your favourite restaurant offered three new side dishes to compliment your favourite dish, you’d complain because now every time you go there you have to miss out on two delicious options. It wouldn’t matter that you could still eat exactly what you always ate at the same price, and have a bonus side dish for free.

We’re not making any progress and I’d rather discuss the intended point of the thread.

[Democratus]

At our table, when rolling initiative - ties are broken with the Int score.

It's a minor thing, but our smart fighter does get to appreciate it occasionally.

[Pex]

What would be helpful is to make the Battle Master more customizable. The Rally Maneuver already likes Charisma. You would need two things, and this was suggested in a thread a month or so ago.

1) Allow the Battle Master to use a different score than ST or DX for attack and damage.
2) Provide more maneuvers that utilize the different stats.

Therefore, if you wanted to be a Warlord CH would be for attack and damage and have more maneuvers that use CH for the DC or affect. Rally exists. Maybe a maneuver that allows the Battlemaster to expend a die to allow CH modifier allies to move.

The Tactician uses IN. Use IN for hit and damage. A Maneuver can give +IN modifier to AC until his next turn.

Maneuver details to be worked out. I'm not married to the preceding ideas, but the point is to make Battle Master modular. The player chooses which ability scores to emphasize and the corresponding maneuvers to reflect the combat style personality.

[Falconcry]

WotC maybe thinking the same since both current UA The Rune-knight and Psi-knight have abilities that key off Int.

[Tanarii]

On being MAD, look at EKs.

They work best if you are MAD. You get the most out of your new resource.

But in spite of that many people take 1/2 power on the new resource and stay SADz ignoring Int, so they can continue to max Con and Feats instead.

As long as effectively ignoring the additional ability scorr is still getting you something more than baseline, its fine. It makes it an option, not a requirement

Unlike, say, Monks and wisdom. They cant ignore it because it affects too many core functions

[ThatoneGuy84]

My main thought.
If your going to buff Fighter based on a mental stat.
What buff does my wizard get based on his Str?
If you attach it to Int. Cool ima still dump int and get a headband on intellect anyways.
What does my druid get for buffing charisma?

It's not like BM is broken and needs fixing.
It's not like they dont get dice back on SR ext.

[Vogie]

One way to back into this without requiring it is use a mod-level gating system

Perhaps one can't use Commanding Strike or Feinting attack without an Int mod of +1 or more. Things like Precision Strike or evasive footwork require an Int mod of +2 or more

Et cetera.

[HPisBS]

One way to back into this without requiring it is use a mod-level gating system

Perhaps one can't use Commanding Strike or Feinting attack without an Int mod of +1 or more. Things like Precision Strike or evasive footwork require an Int mod of +2 or more

Et cetera.

Absolutely not. That transforms these tertiary stat changes from nice little extras into taxes. That's a non-starter.


My main thought.
If your you're going to buff Fighter based on a mental stat.
What buff does my wizard get based on his Str?
If you attach it to Int. Cool ima still dump int and get a headband on intellect anyways.
What does my druid get for buffing charisma?

It's not like BM is broken and needs fixing.
It's not like they dont get dice back on SR ext.

The OP echoes the common refrain that high level martials ultimately lag way, way behind high level spellcasters. When you compare a wizard's or druid's ability to Shapechange or to travel from one side of the world to the other in an instant, to the fighter's or barbarian's ability to... uh... swing a weapon a bit more often or a bit harder, a tiny boost to martials really doesn't seem all that uncalled for.


That said, even full casters could benefit from my suggestion.


Here's some subclass - and even class - agnostic options:

- Int mod times / long rest, you may crit on a weapon attack with a roll of 19 on the die. (Champions may similarly expand their crit range like this, but only ½ Int mod times / long rest.)

Thematically, this would represent using your understanding of armor, anatomy, and/or martial styles to get a decisive hit in. Mechanically, it's Int instead of Wis just because Wis (Perception) is already so much more helpful as a tertiary stat.

- Cha mod times / long rest, you may use your reaction when an enemy makes a melee attack against you to attempt to intimidate it, causing it to flinch rather than properly follow through on its attack. Make a contested Cha (Intimidation) vs Wis (Insight) check. If you succeed, the enemy has disadvantage on that attack roll.

[Skylivedk]

My main thought.
If your going to buff Fighter based on a mental stat.
What buff does my wizard get based on his Str?
If you attach it to Int. Cool ima still dump int and get a headband on intellect anyways.
What does my druid get for buffing charisma?

It's not like BM is broken and needs fixing.
It's not like they dont get dice back on SR ext.
A) OP explicitly mentions that inter-class balancing is not a concern. Maybe this is step 1 in making all stats useful for all classes. Maybe it's a solo campaign. Maybe the Battle Master is played by a player trusted not to break the game (ie I once overloaded a visiting player with magic items because I knew he wouldn't take full advantage of them, but instead goof around while his team groaned)
B) strength is a lot more useful than int. Encumbrance and frequency of saving throws (almost same as Dex if you remove dragons IIRC), defence against prone, one of the most used skills IMX (athletics). Also, see A).


Absolutely not. That transforms these tertiary stat changes from nice little extras into taxes. That's a non-starter.


The OP echoes the common refrain that high level martials ultimately lag way, way behind high level spellcasters. When you compare a wizard's or druid's ability to Shapechange or to travel from one side of the world to the other in an instant, to the fighter or barbarians ability to... uh... swing a weapon a bit more often or a bit harder, a tiny boost to martials really doesn't seem all that uncalled for.


That said, even full casters could benefit from my suggestion.
I) Agreed with both first and second paragraph. As for the second, I feel it's especially relevant for tier 3-4 and doubly so for out of combat, but it's an ooooooold discussion that would derail this thread.

II) I like your crit theme for int. Reminds me of Pillars of Eternity and Divinity. I would probably prefer crits getting a status debuff int times per short/long rest, but that's just me being a sucker for non-damage effects. I would probably use it to give situational effects based on what is happening in that particular round and environment. Maybe with some static choices that can always be used (ie: grant advantage to the next attack, reduce movement speed, prevent reactions, disarm, etc).

Player rolls a crit:
"Great! Can I use my crit to to push him the vampire 5 get so he gets caught by Bob's fireball / swing in the chandelier and bring it down on the vampire for a restraining effect as I land? / jump into to shield my friend as I use the momentum from my attack?"
"You absolutely can"
*Ecstatic and ongoing happiness, everybody rides into the sunset on their favourite dragon*

[Tes]

Not sure how much homebrew you want to involve in this, but there is a somewhat easy way to rework the whole system.
It's slightly more math to track and more or less in the spirit of some 3.5 Prestige Classes. Getting additional boni from a secondary stat or to benefit from DEX and STR at the same time.

Alternative Attack Modifier:
- Weapon Attacks work with STR+DEX Modifier combined
- Total Modifier is capped at +5 to prevent things from going out of control with rolling for stats.
- total Modifier is also capped by your highest 2 out of WIS/INT/CHA (so one can remain a dump stat)
- the stat used for the weapon type -1 is the cap for the other.
14 STR 14 DEX is a +3 for STR and DEX Weapons
16 STR 14 DEX is a +5 for STR and +3 for Dex Weapons
IF you also have a total of +3/+5 in your two highest mental stats as well. Usually 2 ASIs away like it would be if you started with a 16.


- This remains fully compatible with the existing system. The players can always choose what they want (if you find a Belt of Giant Strength etc)

Example (Vanilla) Human Point Buy:
15 STR 14 DEX 14 CON 14 INT 14 WIS 9 CHA
Starts out with a +3 MOD to attacks

Pretty much normal progression for +Hit Modifier.
Downsides are that your "main stat" isn't going to be +5. It's less attractive for Full Casters who want to max their DC and mainly lets Barbarians, Monks, Fighters and Rogues take the middle path. Biggest drawback is they're going to be less good at things that depend on a "main attribute" like Acrobatics, Athletics, Stealth, Grappling... including the saves based on that.

On the plus side you're raising the average for Skill checks and saves across the board, basically jack of all trades (with one weak stat), better out of combat utility and can multiclass into everything with a little planning. Another upside is it promotes Medium Armor if you want to play a fighting man who isn't clanging around in plate, sneaking around in leathers or running around naked. This also opens up the currently non existent fighting man with the ability to be a "Weapon Master" and competently wield about anything he gets his hands on.

The Math behind it doesn't break anything. About the same progression as normal with pointbuy. Enables more races to pick any mundane class efficiently as a side effect.
Rolling for stats already makes it possible to have a level 1 Character with a +5 to his mainstat, so nothing problematic here either from the examples I crosschecked with. I'd personally ditch rolling for stats when allowing to build characters with this method.

[Hilary]

I wouldn't use any of those proposed mechanics.

I understand the issue. People are playing fighters game mechanically and without nuance. I would talk to your players about role playing.

I use Intelligence for literacy. Characters below 9 INT are simply illiterate. Less than 13 INT and they have to learn the spoken and written form of a language separately.

Too low of an INT and NPCs will sell you magic beans (that are not actually magic).

If any PC fails to meet the encounter's passive Perception, they don't notice the enemy. A bunch of goblins in some tall grass are just invisible to them until someone in the party lights them up.

Have passive ability checks using other Attributes (with relatively low DCs). That way, there is an incentive to have a 10 or 11 Int, Wis and Chr.

But I wouldn't link maneuvers to Attributes.

[Skylivedk]

I wouldn't use any of those proposed mechanics.

I understand the issue. People are playing fighters game mechanically and without nuance. I would talk to your players about role playing.

I use Intelligence for literacy. Characters below 9 INT are simply illiterate. Less than 13 INT and they have to learn the spoken and written form of a language separately.

Too low of an INT and NPCs will sell you magic beans (that are not actually magic).

If any PC fails to meet the encounter's passive Perception, they don't notice the enemy. A bunch of goblins in some tall grass are just invisible to them until someone in the party lights them up.

Have passive ability checks using other Attributes (with relatively low DCs). That way, there is an incentive to have a 10 or 11 Int, Wis and Chr.

But I wouldn't link maneuvers to Attributes.

I personally wouldn't use your approach since it seems to widen the gap between out of combat utility on Attack-action based/mundane classes and everybody else. IMX it's the opposite direction of where I want to go. I'd much rather give rewards than penalties for martials and their tertiary stats.

[greenstone]

…how to make other ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) matter for fighters.
…
Thoughts?
Yes. Focus more on the other two pillars of the game.

[BurgerBeast]

Yes. Focus more on the other two pillars of the game.

Oh, yeah. Great idea!

Focus on the parts of the game in which they have no abilities, and are outperformed by basically every other class.

That makes them better how?

Edit: Responses that are Long Overdue:


Why are you commenting? How are you trying to help OP?

Welcome to GitP. It’s quite spectacular.

[QUPTE]@OP: I like it. I would use int for number of manoeuvres, WIS for added accuracy/effect/rerolls of sup die and charisma for extra uses/buff of team abilities as suggested previously.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I think the boost die adds an extra layer of complexity. Simply allowing the expenditure of an extra die seems cleaner and isn’t a huge power boost over a d4 (I don’t think - I could be wrong on this).

I really like Wis for rerolls. That seems like the sort of mechanical efficiency effect that a wise fighter ought to get.


In longer games, I find that the more unfun parts of the battle master is that they don't get better manoeuvres later, so maybe you'd give a look to adding manoeuvres that require multiple sup dice for more complex actions.

Yeah. Not sure if this should just be a universal fix independent of the current project or if it could be sort of maneuver levels 1, 2, 3 like spell levels and could require intelligence to access.


No offense, Biffoniacus_Furiou and Pex, but I don't see how you help the OP. I'm pretty sure OP knows about the other classes. They're kinda right next to the Fighter in the book.

See above. I just expect it in every thread, now. I’m rarely disappointed. It’s not nearly as rude as the people who come in to drop the one liner: “Play a different class,” or “Play a different game,” though.


As for other uses, freestyle:

Intelligence could give tactical boosts where you can reposition allies a bit (as a reaction or bonus action?)

Wisdom mod per short/long rest you could use Know Your Enemy much much faster: as an action/bonus action/reaction instead of taking a minute.

Your second wind hits cha mod extra targets (I know, trampling all over PDK; don't mind, PDK is long dead and turned to compost in my gaming experience)
Cha mod can give extra reactions to allies (but only for AoOs).

Liking any of it?

I like these as general applications to all fighters or as changes to the Champion specifically.

In the case of the Battle Master, the superiority dice and maneuvers are just so inviting to a tinkerer, and so mechanically suited to representing mental stats, that I can’t move away from them, personally.

[AdAstra]

From a balance perspective, anything that would add to Battlemaster's power should probably be implemented at higher levels, since the baseline BM is both quite good and very frontloaded. If I were trying to add mental stat abilities to fighter, I would probably either put them on the base chassis or the Champion. Champion is a useful baseline since it could use some degree of buffing, though adding such abilities will certainly reduce its value as a "simple" subclass, since focusing on those secondary attributes will likely be a bad idea and thus be a potential trap option.

[BurgerBeast]

From a balance perspective, anything that would add to Battlemaster's power should probably be implemented at higher levels, since the baseline BM is both quite good and very frontloaded. If I were trying to add mental stat abilities to fighter, I would probably either put them on the base chassis or the Champion. Champion is a useful baseline since it could use some degree of buffing, though adding such abilities will certainly reduce its value as a "simple" subclass, since focusing on those secondary attributes will likely be a bad idea and thus be a potential trap option.

Yeah. I totally agree. The idea was never to buff the BM exclusively.

The idea was to see how it could be done with Battle Master, and then do it with other classes and/or subclasses later. BM is just a trial run.

There might be simpler, passive abilities that could work for a Champion, but that’s a topic for another thread.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

I’ve been thinking lately (somewhat inspired by other threads) about how to make other ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) matter for fighters.

An idea has occurred to me. I’ll outline it here. It is in regard to the Battle Master subclass only. The idea is to provide bonuses based on these other abilities that at the very least cause a player to consider increasing those abilities.

I’m wanting to avoid conversations about how these ideas may create balance issues across classes and focus more on whether they can create viable alternatives to, for example, always dumping Intelligence.

Here are the ideas:

Intelligence: (1) you learn additional maneuvers equal to your intelligence modifier. (Since maneuvers are problematic because they get worse as you level, as an alternative idea, there could be optional tiered maneuvers, and intelligence modifier would set the cap on the tier available (minimum 1)).

Wisdom: apply your wisdom modifier to the number of superiority dice.

Charisma: not sure yet. Maybe you get extra superiority dice that must be spent on commanders strike, distracting strike, goading attack, menacing strike, or rally. Or maybe your Charisma modifier adds to your save DC on all maneuvers. Or maybe it adds to your uses of indomitable (this alone doesn’t seem significant enough to motivate investing in Charisma).

Thoughts?

For what your are trying to accoplish, mental stats would be better served with the Know Your Enemy class feature. Various skill checks could be implemented to provide more information about a foe other than just the physical ones the class feature already provides. For instance, after observing the target, the Battlemaster via a Insight (Wisdom) check could identify whether a spell caster favors spells that have certain casting methods such as somatic by the way the target naturally places their hands. Further such checks could be allowed in combat though at a higher difficulty.

This would certainly fit the theme of the subclass being essentially the ultimate tactician. In this case, crucial knowledge gain is more powerful than their maneuvers.

[Pex]

See above. I just expect it in every thread, now. I’m rarely disappointed. It’s not nearly as rude as the people who come in to drop the one liner: “Play a different class,” or “Play a different game,” though.



When asking for feedback or just sharing there will be people who disagree or not like what is proposed. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with their disagreement and double down on the original proposition, but that does not make the people who disagree or not like the proposal badwrongopinion how dare they speak.

[47Ace]

The idea is interesting but I think there could be some improvements in its presentation. Currently it is presented sort of like these are all of your class abilities here for the taking but you cant afford top use most of them and if you try you will be a poor fighter. To go to your restaurant example its less like you have more side dishes to choose from and more like they bring out 3 new side dishes for you to try but don't let you try them all unless you only eat part of the main (which is the reason you are there in the first place) and if you want to eat all on of the sides you have to still eat only a little of the main and none of the other sides. I know this is not how you see it but it is kind of how it is presented.

To help with the presentation I suggest that the new mental stat bumps be mutually exclusive. So you choose to be a smart/wise/charismatic fighter and only get the int/wis/chr bonuses. That way its less of you need all stats so you will be good at nothing. I understand that this is you intent but, you original suggestion comes across a lot like fighters invest in all of these stats. This change also helps avoid potential problems with high stat rolls. Further, it may make sense to treat this as an alternative class feature and have it cost the fighting style. That way you are providing options for smart/wise/charismatic fighters not just buffing them. It also gives you more room to make the abilities more powerful.

[Man_Over_Game]

So what does all this information tell us? To me it says that if we want to make a character care about other stats without having them be dependent on them, don't make those stats a part of that character's offense. Focus on making it a part of their utility and defense.

I think that's actually a design choice that's consistent in 5e. Don't combine versatility with offensive power.

We see this in the Cleric. The Cleric has the most features, proficiencies, and uses the versatile spell preparation system. The catch? They don't deal damage, and the damage they DO deal relies on assisting their allies (such as Guiding Bolt or Spirit Guardians).

However, the Warlock's Eldritch Bolt is one of his best offensive tools, yet min-maxing for it requires the Warlock to lose so much versatility to do so.

I've seen it in a few other places, but it effectively boils down to make offense boring.

Ironically, this works out player-side, too. Fireball is one of the best offensive spells in the game (if not THE best), and is often the most boring solution to a problem. Players who care about damage numbers will ignore everything that isn't damage, so they'll use Fireball or GWM or Polearm Master. Everyone else will usually do something more complex/interesting to do, and won't care about the damage numbers.

What you don't want is to introduce something interesting into the game and have all your min-maxers use it to abuse a niche and powerful mechanic for the sake of numbers.
Battlemaster GWM/PAM users for Trip Attack come to mind. In a perfect world, the Champion would fill this design space, but the Samurai did instead (replacing the battlemaster for "1 dimensional heavy hitter").

[Dienekes]

I think that's actually a design choice that's consistent in 5e. Don't combine versatility with offensive power.

We see this in the Cleric. The Cleric has the most features, proficiencies, and uses the versatile spell preparation system. The catch? They don't deal damage, and the damage they DO deal relies on assisting their allies (such as Guiding Bolt or Spirit Guardians).

However, the Warlock's Eldritch Bolt is one of his best offensive tools, yet min-maxing for it requires the Warlock to lose so much versatility to do so.

I've seen it in a few other places, but it effectively boils down to make offense boring.

I'd not be surprised if that was a design choice, but I'm not sure if that bares out in the specifics. Just looking at Cleric, Spirit Guardians is one of the best damage spells in the game. Along with Spirit Weapon Cleric ends up doing some of the largest consistent damage per round of the casters. Even if others can do more burst.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd not be surprised if that was a design choice, but I'm not sure if that bares out in the specifics. Just looking at Cleric, Spirit Guardians is one of the best damage spells in the game. Along with Spirit Weapon Cleric ends up doing some of the largest consistent damage per round of the casters. Even if others can do more burst.

Right, but those are two spells across the entire spell list. You don't see any others come up for damage.

Fireball, too, is an anomaly, at hitting up to 64 targets for ~20 damage each after accounting for a 60% miss/save chance. Even if you use the square root of the max number of targets (a good estimation when determining the average number of targets for an AoE spell), 160 average damage after accounting your miss chance doesn't describe your average level 3 Wizard spell.

[Dienekes]

Right, but those are two spells across the entire spell list. You don't see any others come up for damage.

But do you really need more all that often? Radiant and Force damage are some of the best damage types in the game. And Spirit Guardian is one of the best upcastable damage spells. Much better than Fireball for higher slots.

Clerics have a whole bunch of very specific heals, buffs, debuffs, and so on. But starting at 5th level on, they can also be damage dealing monsters for little cost.

[Skylivedk]

I'd not be surprised if that was a design choice, but I'm not sure if that bares out in the specifics. Just looking at Cleric, Spirit Guardians is one of the best damage spells in the game. Along with Spirit Weapon Cleric ends up doing some of the largest consistent damage per round of the casters. Even if others can do more burst.
Not being it. Or: it might have been intended, but (nuclear) Wizard, Druid (especially shepherd and moon) and Lore Bard seem to be obvious outliers in being both single vector powerful and extremely versatile. Paladin is also a lot of both and o have a hard time arguing that the Arcane Trickster is less versatile/powerful than its Rogue cousins.

[BurgerBeast]

When asking for feedback or just sharing there will be people who disagree or not like what is proposed. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with their disagreement and double down on the original proposition, but that does not make the people who disagree or not like the proposal badwrongopinion how dare they speak.

Once again, you don’t seem to understand what I’m talking about.

I agree with all of this, except for your misuse of the term doubling down.

I’m talking about this: someone asks “what would be a good way to do this?”

And then someone else says: “you shouldn’t do that.” That’s not the advice that was asked for. (That’s answering the question should I do this. Not how should I do this.) That’s preaching an attitude. That’s offering unsolicited advice, which is categorically rude.

It’s only more annoying, as has been pointed out by others, when the “reason” why you “shouldn’t do it” is so simple that it’s impossible to think the OP could not have considered it without assuming a he or she possesses a substantial degree of incompetence.

But for some reason it seems particular to this forum that people can’t help themselves in this particular way.

[Man_Over_Game]

Once again, you don’t seem to understand what I’m talking about.

I agree with all of this, except for your misuse of the term doubling down.

I’m talking about this: someone asks “what would be a good way to do this?”

And then someone else says: “you shouldn’t do that.” That’s not the advice that was asked for. (That’s answering the question should I do this. Not how should I do this.) That’s preaching an attitude. That’s offering unsolicited advice, which is categorically rude.

It’s only more annoying, as has been pointed out by others, when the “reason” why you “shouldn’t do it” is so simple that it’s impossible to think the OP could not have considered it without assuming a he or she possesses a substantial degree of incompetence.

But for some reason it seems particular to this forum that people can’t help themselves in this particular way.

I think a good way of implementing it would be to focus on other aspects of the Fighter, such as its defensive abilities or its importance of positioning. Maybe tie them into things that casters can find use of to encourage more multiclassing.

For example:
The Dodge action reduces incoming damage equal to your Fighter level or Intelligence modifier, whichever is less.
Attacks made against you that are not during that opponent's turn (such as Legendary Actions or Opportunity Attacks) get a penalty to hit equal to your Wisdom Modifier or your Fighter Level, whichever is less.
Second Wind heals all other allies adjacent to you equal to your Charisma modifier or 1/2 of your Fighter level, whichever is less.

You could tie in condition effects (like maybe knocking a target prone as an Opportunity Attack rider), but it'd be hard to balance since conditions are On/Off and don't scale well with actual numbers.

[Pex]

Once again, you don’t seem to understand what I’m talking about.

I agree with all of this, except for your misuse of the term doubling down.

I’m talking about this: someone asks “what would be a good way to do this?”

And then someone else says: “you shouldn’t do that.” That’s not the advice that was asked for. (That’s answering the question should I do this. Not how should I do this.) That’s preaching an attitude. That’s offering unsolicited advice, which is categorically rude.

It’s only more annoying, as has been pointed out by others, when the “reason” why you “shouldn’t do it” is so simple that it’s impossible to think the OP could not have considered it without assuming a he or she possesses a substantial degree of incompetence.

But for some reason it seems particular to this forum that people can’t help themselves in this particular way.

You're offended the idea is not universally liked. It's fun on paper to have all ability scores affect how a class works. It doesn't work in practice because ability scores are a zero sum game. The class can't utilize all ability scores at once, so it will not be able to use the new features. In attempting to do so it weakens itself in the abilities it was able to do in its original format.

Any MAD class has the problem of not being able to use all it is given. 3E monk was notorious for it. I get it the battle master is not losing what it had, but in attempting to gain the use of the new stuff it weakens in the combat prowess it has. To increase IN/WI/CH to gain use of the new features it has to lower ST/DX/CO it has been using. Having more maneuvers because of higher IN won't matter if you keep missing more because of lower ST/DX or dropping faster due to lower hit points of having a lower CO.

Disagree all you want that the idea will work, but don't call me names because I think otherwise.

[BurgerBeast]

You're offended the idea is not universally liked.

No, I’m not. You’re still not understanding. I couldn’t care less if people hate the idea. But I never asked if anyone hated it. I asked if people thought it worked. Maybe you think those are the same. They are not.

But if you want to play that game: you’re projecting.


It's fun on paper to have all ability scores affect how a class works. It doesn't work in practice because ability scores are a zero sum game. The class can't utilize all ability scores at once, so it will not be able to use the new features. In attempting to do so it weakens itself in the abilities it was able to do in its original format.

What are you talking about?

1. What does fun have to do with it?

2. Ability scores already affect how every character works, which means they affect how every class works. It comes down to degree.

3. What do you mean by it doesn’t “work” in practice? Of course it works. If I make the change tomorrow, and play the game... the game doesn’t explode. It doesn’t stop working.

4. Ability scores are not a game at all, let alone a zero sum game.

5. Who said anything about using all ability scores at once? Nobody is “trying to do so.”

6. If you can’t use all of your features at once, that doesn’t mean you can’t use all of your features. You may have noticed that none of classes can use all of their features at once.

— It’s fun to say things like this in the nebula of generality. But a brief look at some specific examples (which, coincidentally, include the present example), and it’s obvious that you’re wrong. As has been pointed out, giving extra features to a class is not a loss regardless of how much pessimism one brings to the table.


Any MAD class has the problem of not being able to use all it is given.

It’s not that hard. MAD = Multiple Attribute Dependent. Not Multiple Attributes Add Value.

If you take a pre-existing class, and add gravy, that’s not adding dependence. This is fairly straightforward.


3E monk was notorious for it. I get it the battle master is not losing what it had,...

No. You really don’t get it. The 3E Monk depended on multiple attributes to be anything other than useless. The player had to invest in multiple attributes. Hence, dependent. Hence, MAD.

The 5e Battle Master is fine. A player can dump Int, Wis, and Cha, and manage. Any investment in those stats is not required. Hence, not dependent. Only extra goodies. Only extra. So, not MAD.

Your continued denial of this, by the way, is what it properly means to double down.


...but in attempting to gain the use of the new stuff it weakens in the combat prowess it has.

But the new stuff is not required. and if it is, then don’t trade it. And if you rolled stats and you rolled a few extra high stats... hey, you get a little more. For free. No sacrifice.


To increase IN/WI/CH to gain use of the new features it has to lower ST/DX/CO it has been using.

So what? It doesn’t need to do it. It can do it if it wants.

If a Druid wants to be persuasive, he has to give something up to increase his Charisma. But Druids don’t need to be persuasive.


Having more maneuvers because of higher IN won't matter if you keep missing more because of lower ST/DX or dropping faster due to lower hit points of having a lower CO.

Then don’t lower Str, Dex, or Con. What’s the problem?


Disagree all you want that the idea will work, but don't call me names because I think otherwise.

What are you talking about?

I never said, nor defended, the idea that my suggestion “would work” - I don’t even know what that means. And I never called you any name. Feel free to quote me if I did.

I simply never asked for opinions on whether it would work. I asked for opinions on how to make it better. Telling me it won’t work is a waste of time. It happens to say that in the initial post, too.

And I pointed out that people on this forum can’t resist derailing threads. I rest my case. Here we are.

Can you just respect the context of the thread?

[Skylivedk]

Once again, you don’t seem to understand what I’m talking about.

I agree with all of this, except for your misuse of the term doubling down.

I’m talking about this: someone asks “what would be a good way to do this?”

And then someone else says: “you shouldn’t do that.” That’s not the advice that was asked for. (That’s answering the question should I do this. Not how should I do this.) That’s preaching an attitude. That’s offering unsolicited advice, which is categorically rude.

It’s only more annoying, as has been pointed out by others, when the “reason” why you “shouldn’t do it” is so simple that it’s impossible to think the OP could not have considered it without assuming a he or she possesses a substantial degree of incompetence.

But for some reason it seems particular to this forum that people can’t help themselves in this particular way.

Thank you for doubling down on this tendency! (I hope doubling down made sense in this context!) Doubly so without losing your temper which I did in a similar situation.


You're offended the idea is not universally liked. It's fun on paper to have all ability scores affect how a class works. It doesn't work in practice because ability scores are a zero sum game. The class can't utilize all ability scores at once, so it will not be able to use the new features. In attempting to do so it weakens itself in the abilities it was able to do in its original format.

Any MAD class has the problem of not being able to use all it is given. 3E monk was notorious for it. I get it the battle master is not losing what it had, but in attempting to gain the use of the new stuff it weakens in the combat prowess it has. To increase IN/WI/CH to gain use of the new features it has to lower ST/DX/CO it has been using. Having more maneuvers because of higher IN won't matter if you keep missing more because of lower ST/DX or dropping faster due to lower hit points of having a lower CO.

Disagree all you want that the idea will work, but don't call me names because I think otherwise.

It is, almost by any known standard, rude to claim an emotion to be felt by someone else. I hate when people double down on mind reading to teleport their thoughts into other people. So take that fertilizer to the river Stryx and back again: you have no freaking idea what offends people and what doesn't and claiming so is nothing but evidence to presumptuousness (c).


No, I’m not. You’re still not understanding. I couldn’t care less if people hate the idea. But I never asked if anyone hated it. I asked if people thought it worked. Maybe you think those are the same. They are not.

But if you want to play that game: you’re projecting.



What are you talking about?

1. What does fun have to do with it?

2. Ability scores already affect how every character works, which means they affect how every class works. It comes down to degree.

3. What do you mean by it doesn’t “work” in practice? Of course it works. If I make the change tomorrow, and play the game... the game doesn’t explode. It doesn’t stop working.

4. Ability scores are not a game at all, let alone a zero sum game.

5. Who said anything about using all ability scores at once? Nobody is “trying to do so.”

6. If you can’t use all of your features at once, that doesn’t mean you can’t use all of your features. You may have noticed that none of classes can use all of their features at once.

— It’s fun to say things like this in the nebula of generality. But a brief look at some specific examples (which, coincidentally, include the present example), and it’s obvious that you’re wrong. As has been pointed out, giving extra features to a class is not a loss regardless of how much pessimism one brings to the table.



It’s not that hard. MAD = Multiple Attribute Dependent. Not Multiple Attributes Add Value.

If you take a pre-existing class, and add gravy, that’s not adding dependence. This is fairly straightforward.



No. You really don’t get it. The 3E Monk depended on multiple attributes to be anything other than useless. The player had to invest in multiple attributes. Hence, dependent. Hence, MAD.

The 5e Battle Master is fine. A player can dump Int, Wis, and Cha, and manage. Any investment in those stats is not required. Hence, not dependent. Only extra goodies. Only extra. So, not MAD.

Your continued denial of this, by the way, is what it properly means to [I]double down.



But the new stuff is not required. and if it is, then don’t trade it. And if you rolled stats and you rolled a few extra high stats... hey, you get a little more. For free. No sacrifice.



So what? It doesn’t need to do it. It can do it if it wants.

If a Druid wants to be persuasive, he has to give something up to increase his Charisma. But Druids don’t need to be persuasive.



Then don’t lower Str, Dex, or Con. What’s the problem?



What are you talking about?

I never said, nor defended, the idea that my suggestion “would work” - I don’t even know what that means. And I never called you any name. Feel free to quote me if I did.

I simply never asked for opinions on whether it would work. I asked for opinions on how to make it better. Telling me it won’t work is a waste of time. It happens to say that in the initial post, too.

And I pointed out that people on this forum can’t resist derailing threads. I rest my case. Here we are.

Can you just respect the context of the thread?

Thank you! I really like your posting style. I hope you don't get an infraction for calling people out. With that in mind, watch out for claiming that people haven't read it understood such and such. Even if their answer shows they haven't, you have publicly call it out (which I think is all kinds of won't but eh)


I think a good way of implementing it would be to focus on other aspects of the Fighter, such as its defensive abilities or its importance of positioning. Maybe tie them into things that casters can find use of to encourage more multiclassing.

For example:
The Dodge action reduces incoming damage equal to your Fighter level or Intelligence modifier, whichever is less.
Attacks made against you that are not during that opponent's turn (such as Legendary Actions or Opportunity Attacks) get a penalty to hit equal to your Wisdom Modifier or your Fighter Level, whichever is less.
Second Wind heals all other allies adjacent to you equal to your Charisma modifier or 1/2 of your Fighter level, whichever is less.

You could tie in condition effects (like maybe knocking a target prone as an Opportunity Attack rider), but it'd be hard to balance since conditions are On/Off and don't scale well with actual numbers.
Thank you for contributing with some really good options!

[eunwoler]

This to me is really brilliant

To me, this adds build customisability and choice making in a similar way to how Fighters already have to choose between Strength and Dexterity. By keying something off of Intelligence without inherently stripping away anything from the current Fighter, you have a similar situation but with more leeway in how far you want to go in either direction. It's also better design IMO because it plays differently rather than just boosting the same number with a different ability score.

There's a tradeoff. You fight better, or you have more maneuvers, but you don't have both. I really like it

Being able to make Intelligent fighters that
a) actually fulfil the thematic obligations of an INT fighter vs STR or Dex, without
b) adding some gamey and bloated new feat to arbitrarily patch the attack and damage gap or
c) being weaker

I would love to try something like this

[HPisBS]

... Being able to make Intelligent fighters that
a) actually fulfil the thematic obligations of an INT fighter vs STR or Dex, without
b) adding some gamey and bloated new feat to arbitrarily patch the attack and damage gap or
c) being weaker

I would love to try something like this

It's still kinda gamey and bloated. A more elegant fix could apply to any fighter, rather than having to come up with different minor buffs for each subclass.

Something like:

- You can use your understanding of armor, anatomy, martial styles, etc, to get a decisive hit in. A number of times equal to your Intelligence modifier, you may crit on a weapon attack when you roll a 19 on the die. You regain all uses of this feature when you finish a long rest.
(Champions may similarly expand their crit range like this, but only ½ Int mod times / long rest.)

- Cha mod times per long rest, you may use your reaction when an enemy makes a melee attack against you to attempt to intimidate it, causing it to flinch rather than properly follow through on its attack. Make a contested Cha (Intimidation) vs Wis (Insight) check. If you succeed, the enemy has disadvantage on that attack roll.