My Immediate Reaction to Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.

[Xeko]

https://i.imgflip.com/4n4hjz.jpg

[Snowbluff]

It was pretty funny seeing those Battlemaster builds. Like, I don't think the subclasses is super interesting compared for more complex ones like Bladesinger, or Eldritch Knight, or Sea Sorc (which was never printed :v ).

[Jerrykhor]

It was pretty funny seeing those Battlemaster builds. Like, I don't think the subclasses is super interesting compared for more complex ones like Bladesinger, or Eldritch Knight, or Sea Sorc (which was never printed :v ).

I saw those builds and nearly vomited. So many Weapon Masters and Savage Attackers in there, i suspect they want to trick newbies to take these feats that otherwise would not be recommended by the veterans.

Pugilist just takes the cake though. Durable?? Grappler??? Jesus christ, Savage attacker don't even work with unarmed strikes!

Or maybe Tasha being a wizard just wants fighters to suck.

[Kane0]

I dont have my copy yet, sounds like it contains sample characters with questionable build decisions?



Or maybe Tasha being a wizard just wants fighters to suck.

Should have penned a better Wizard subclass then, its not like UA was lacking for strong options.

[ff7hero]

Not to disagree with your main point, but I think Savage Attacker (when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack) works with unarmed strikes. They're not melee weapons, but they are melee weapon attacks. Edit: Provided you managed to make your unarmed strikes toll damage.

I think. It's somewhat murky.

Also not saying it's good. Its just not straight up dysfunctional. Also why are all these fighters taking Weapon Master?

[Jerrykhor]

Not to disagree with your main point, but I think Savage Attacker (when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack) works with unarmed strikes. They're not melee weapons, but they are melee weapon attacks. Edit: Provided you managed to make your unarmed strikes toll damage.

I think. It's somewhat murky.

Also not saying it's good. Its just not straight up dysfunctional. Also why are all these fighters taking Weapon Master?

You missed out the important part, which states you can reroll the weapon's damage dice.

[Unoriginal]

You missed out the important part, which states you can reroll the weapon's damage dice.

Are you saying "it doesn't work because unarmed strikes aren't weapons" or "it doesn't work because unarmed strikes don't have damage dice usually"?

[Telwar]

Are you saying "it doesn't work because unarmed strikes aren't weapons" or "it doesn't work because unarmed strikes don't have damage dice usually"?

Basically yes. Since smites don't work with unarmed strikes, theoretically neither would Savage Attacker. And that would be a waste even if it did work, which the DM can of course rule.

As far as I can tell, those two pages of battlemaster builds are there to fill page count. It's even more hilarious considering Weapon Master literally does nothing for fighters, who already have proficiency in all simple and martial weapons. Maybe that could get them the Calendar double scimitar, but what else would they take for the other three weapons?

[TheUser]

Sculpt spells still hasn't been errata'd more than 5 years after the fact. Tasha's various nerfs to subclasses that weren't the Eloquence Bard nor the new Sorcerer subclasses. 300ft of darkvision, heavy armor and advantage on initiative on a level 1 dip...Can we finally confirm that WotC is incompetent and we should pull a Pathfinder and publish our own 5.5? I already have an array of custom rules that apply globally (Bows as finesse weapons for instance) as well as specific alterations for Sorcerers, Rangers, Warlocks, Monks, Fighters and Barbarians.

[Unoriginal]

Basically yes. Since smites don't work with unarmed strikes, theoretically neither would Savage Attacker. And that would be a waste even if it did work, which the DM can of course rule.

As far as I can tell, those two pages of battlemaster builds are there to fill page count. It's even more hilarious considering Weapon Master literally does nothing for fighters, who already have proficiency in all simple and martial weapons. Maybe that could get them the Calendar double scimitar, but what else would they take for the other three weapons?

My bet is more on "they forgot to correct the section before sending it to print".

Weapon Master does nothing for the Fighter, but that's not the case of Great Weapon Master, for example.

I'm expecting erratas for this section. Or maybe more hoping.

[MaxWilson]

https://i.imgflip.com/4n4hjz.jpg

They're not even good Battlemaster builds. Like, the Archer has Disarming Strike (which is primary useful in melee) and didn't have Menacing Strike (which is much better at range because you get more control over their movement that way).

I found the logic behind their builds baffling.


I saw those builds and nearly vomited. So many Weapon Masters and Savage Attackers in there, i suspect they want to trick newbies to take these feats that otherwise would not be recommended by the veterans.

Yeah, it's very strange that they'd spend two pages on printing terrible advice.

[Amechra]

I'm guessing the Pugilist thing was a product of:

1. "Man, there really aren't that many feats that work with unarmed strikes."
2. "I guess Savage Attacker might work? Man, our Sage Advice is confusing."
3. "Hey, you could reroll the d8 damage die you get from the Unarmed Fighting Style! That seems alright, especially since you can add more dice of damage with maneuvers."
4. "The Unarmed Fighting Style gives you a bonus when you grapple... hey, we have a Grappler feat! It's just common sense that you'd want that one."

[Unoriginal]

4. "The Unarmed Fighting Style gives you a bonus when you grapple... hey, we have a Grappler feat! It's just common sense that you'd want that one."

Wouldn't the Grappler feat be sort of worthwhile with Unarmed?

I mean, advantage on all attacks + 1d4 damage on the grappled opponent, with the possibility of Restraining the target (and such both letting all your teammates have advantage on the target and making the target have Disadvantage if they try to attack someone other than you)... it's not Sentinel but it's not that bad.

[ff7hero]

You missed out the important part, which states you can reroll the weapon's damage dice.

Got me there. Oh 5e, I thought we weren't playing these games. At least 3.5 embraced and acknowledged it.

ETA: re: Grappler. It's a bad feat on Grapplers. You can shove your Grapplee prone (you're good at this if you're good at grappling), to get most of the benefits of the first 2 bullet points without restraining yourself, and as a bonus, it gets a third bullet point that does nothing!

[Evaar]

Wouldn't the Grappler feat be sort of worthwhile with Unarmed?

I mean, advantage on all attacks + 1d4 damage on the grappled opponent, with the possibility of Restraining the target (and such both letting all your teammates have advantage on the target and making the target have Disadvantage if they try to attack someone other than you)... it's not Sentinel but it's not that bad.

The fact that it restrains you as well is kind of a dealbreaker. You may as well just shove the target prone instead. That doesn't cost you a feat, the enemy has disadvantage to attack you, and your allies in melee can still gain advantage or rely on the enemy having disadvantage against them. All Grappler is getting you is advantage for your ranged allies, but also granting it to all of your enemies.

However, here's a thought. Is there anything that would prevent you from grappling two targets at a time? I don't think there is.

You need 1 free hand to grapple. If you took the unarmed fighting style, probably both of your hands are free. You can occupy them both with grappling, and then still attack the targets with kick and headbutts. Locking down two creatures in this way seems pretty solid.

[MaxWilson]

The fact that it restrains you as well is kind of a dealbreaker. You may as well just shove the target prone instead. That doesn't cost you a feat, the enemy has disadvantage to attack you, and your allies in melee can still gain advantage or rely on the enemy having disadvantage against them. All Grappler is getting you is advantage for your ranged allies, but also granting it to all of your enemies.

However, here's a thought. Is there anything that would prevent you from grappling two targets at a time? I don't think there is.

You need 1 free hand to grapple. If you took the unarmed fighting style, probably both of your hands are free. You can occupy them both with grappling, and then still attack the targets with kick and headbutts. Locking down two creatures in this way seems pretty solid.

Then if you're an Enchanter (hopefully w/ heavy armor via multiclassing), you can lock down two enemies with Tasha's Uncontrollable Laughter, two more enemies with your free hands after casting the spell, and one more with your Hypnotic Gaze after you've grappled two enemies.

I've never seen anyone actually go all the way up to five enemies on lockdown, due to action economy issues (it takes four whole rounds), but theoretically you could.

I have seen a monk use double-grappling fairly effectively. Unlike a fighter you don't lose any offense or defense from doing so, and you can even bonus action Dodge afterwards.

[Unoriginal]

The fact that it restrains you as well is kind of a dealbreaker. You may as well just shove the target prone instead. That doesn't cost you a feat, the enemy has disadvantage to attack you, and your allies in melee can still gain advantage or rely on the enemy having disadvantage against them. All Grappler is getting you is advantage for your ranged allies, but also granting it to all of your enemies.

Fair.



However, here's a thought. Is there anything that would prevent you from grappling two targets at a time? I don't think there is.

It is indeed possible to grapple more than one target if you have the limbs for it.

[Dienekes]

https://i.imgflip.com/4n4hjz.jpg

I saw it more that they saw the Battlemaster as a means to patch the fighter.

For better or worse (worse in my opinion) two of the three initial subclasses were designed to fill every non-magic warrior in history that wasn’t a Barbarian or Assassin. With the only real difference being one provides far more means to fine tune your build than the other.

Of course even with the Battlemaster apparently it never occurred to WotC to let the class interact with any other pillar of gameplay besides combat. At least until now.

Adding in new maneuvers many of which support doing things out of combat and then allowing all fighters the ability to pick a few of them up is a neat little fix.

And it also helps solve one of the major Battlemaster problems. For years now the later levels were just filled with taking the combat maneuvers you didn’t want earlier. But now it becomes possible to quickly take the combat maneuvers you want early then pick and choose some out of combat goodies when you’re out of maneuvers that strengthen your build.

As to the Battlemaster builds it seems pretty much to follow through on that. Wanna play a non-magic fight man here’s how you do it for as many archetypes as we can think of. If you don’t want to play Battlemaster just pick Champion and don’t follow the maneuver section.

My only real criticisms for it is why would they wait 6 years for this. Why would they think a book of advanced character options was the place to drop info for people who apparently have difficulty building a 5e Fighter of all things. And why did you get one such person to design these builds? Grappler feat? Lunge Maneuver? Weapon Master???

[Waazraath]

https://i.imgflip.com/4n4hjz.jpg

Having read Tasha's by now, I'm a bit surprised by this one. Yeah, battlemaster got a few nice additional maneuvers, especially the ones that improve skill. It gives it extra out of combat options, which it had very little class features for. But the build suggetions are, as mentioned, pretty meh.

So compared with the other fighter subclasses, it always was stronger than lets say champion and banneret, and still is, but I think at least EK and Samurai can give the BM a run for its money, in combat and EK definitely also outside combat, even with these additional maneuvers. And the new subclasses are strong as well.... psi warrior is a little bit less frontloaded, but catches up real nice, while rune knight is just damn strong, might be the strongest fighter subclass around by now. Lots of options and pretty strong ones.

[Amdy_vill]

I have two notes:

1. either every fighter sub should have some kind of mini feats like maneuvers and rune or battle maser should be rolled into the baseline(this one would require a new edition)

2. I think wizards have changed their ideas on how 5e should be balanced and designed so much it is creating problems like this. they keep putting out content for subs with mini feats but the ones that lack them get left behind. also after WotC gets bored with a sub they completely forget about it.

While I don't want a new edition Wotc Realy needs to buck up and commit to a stander balance and produce for 5e or shut up and make a new edition.

[Chaosmancer]

Huh, I knew grappler was bad, but I didn't realize it said that the enemy escapes automatically if they are one size larger than you. Is that something that has been errata'd? (I was reading my 1st edition 5e PHB)

I do think there are some fun builds now, barbarian fighter could get advantage and the maneuver, tavern brawler also woult let you grapple as a bonus action. Two attacks, grapple both, deal auto 1d4 damage, and just start punching for 1d6+str+rage

It would be amusingly fun.


Tanget: WHY WEAPON MASTER? Does anyone have a tweet explaining that?

[Morty]

I mean, what else were they going to do? Battlemaster is where approximately 75% of build variety for non-casting classes is contained. Much less just fighters. Other classes/subclasses may not be weak, but it's a lot more difficult to add extra content to them or customize them.

[MaxWilson]

Tanget: WHY WEAPON MASTER? Does anyone have a tweet explaining that?

What could they possibly say except "We messed up and forgot what it did. We are very sorry"?

[Chaosmancer]

What could they possibly say except "We messed up and forgot what it did. We are very sorry"?

I don't know, that's why I want to know.