What if all martials got combat maneuvers? (and they were somewhat at-will?)

[Greywander]

I know it's a common feeling that martials feel less impressive than spellcasters, especially at higher levels. My first thought was to give them the Martial Adept feat for free, but honestly that feat is kind of underwhelming for non-Battle Masters. But I thought I'd take the concept and see if I could adapt it into something more useful.

Swords bards get flourishes, which run off their bardic inspiration dice. Notably, at higher levels they can use their flourishes at-will if they use a smaller die. I like the idea of allowing martials to spam combat maneuvers, though I do worry it might be a bit too strong.

I was thinking maybe this could be a sort of analogue to cantrip scaling. Cantrips don't care about your class, only that you know the cantrip. So what I was considering was that anyone with proficiency with at least one martial weapon would get access to these combat maneuvers. It doesn't matter how they get that proficiency, it could be from a race, class, or feat. You'd start with, say, two combat maneuvers and one superiority die, which is a d4. At 5th, 11th, and 17th levels, you learn one more maneuver and get another superiority die. You regain one superiority die at the start of each turn. This means you have at most four dice (unless you're a BM fighter), allowing you to blow them all in two or three turns, then being stuck at one per turn for the rest of the combat.

Alternatively, you could only get one superiority die, but that die gets bigger as you level up. But that would scale up to a d10, and adding 1d10 to one attack roll per turn is pretty strong, even without the maneuver's effect. Maybe it should just be one die that is always a d4, and leveling up just learns more maneuvers. We could even remove the superiority die altogether, as all it does is add a bonus to the attack or damage roll; almost every maneuver still has an effect even without the superiority die.

If we want to go weirder, I thought it might be interesting to run it as a deck of cards. You learn, say, 5 maneuvers, including being able to choose the same maneuver more than once. You assign each maneuver to a card and shuffle the deck. When you roll initiative, draw three cards. Once per turn, you can use a card to use the corresponding maneuver, allowing you to draw another card. Once you play the last card, shuffle the discarded cards into a new deck. You can add two more cards/maneuvers at 5th, 11th, and 17th level. This way, you have access to a broader variety of maneuvers, and can still use one per round, but your access to those maneuvers is limited by what you draw from the deck. It forces you to cycle through different maneuvers instead of just spamming the same one over and over. You can choose to fill your deck with just one maneuver, but that in turn locks you into just that one maneuver when a different maneuver might be useful in different circumstances. Some people might chafe at the randomness the deck introduces, though.

Thoughts on this idea? I know similar ideas have been proposed before. Are there other/better ways this could be done?

[OldTrees1]

I am always a fan of martial characters getting interesting at-will abilities. I see your idea allows 1 combat maneuver per round as an at-will feature. The question is, are the combat maneuvers interesting, and for what level ranges do they remain interesting? I suspect this would feel like the Protection or Interception fighting styles. They start out interesting, and remain relevant, but eventually the character grows to higher levels where they expect to do higher level things.



You might need to curate the list if you allow at-will maneuvers. However I quickly ran through the list and I was not too worried. Here are my notes:

Ambush (and similar) would be fine despite not the focus of this feature. It is a +1d4 to Stealth and Initiative, but there are other abilities (Guidance) like that.
Brace/Riposte is probably fine. It gives situation reaction attack. Might be used on multiclass Rogues.
Commander Strike at will always asks if there is a Rogue in the party.
Evasive Footwork is a boost to AC. That might be a problem at low levels. Or it might not.

[CheddarChampion]

I'm running a game with several house rules, mostly where you can't multiclass and martial classes get the same Maneuver progression as a Battle Master, while a Battle Master gets double the normal.

Last session they were level 6 and it worked just fine (meaning it wasn't imbalanced). The party consists of two Battle Masters, a Transmutation Wizard, and a Trickery Cleric.

I imagine one free attack maneuver per round for any class would work as well. Maybe without bonus damage - that way it's more of a versatility boost and less of a damage boost.

[Hytheter]

"All martials should have maneuvers" is a common sentiment but not one that I agree with.

All fighters should have maneuvers, for sure - or to put it another way, Battle Master should be baked in to the core class. The Fighter is supposed to be an elite warrior, the epitome of martial skill, and I feel maneuvers capture that. There's a lot more they could do with it, especially in the back half of the game, but it's thematic to the class and I feel it should be exclusive to them.

But more to the point, just slapping maneuvers onto everybody is lazy. I'm not saying that only fighters should get interesting cool things they can do. Rather, the other martial classes should get similar things that are more thematic to them and fit better with their mechanics.

Paladins have smite, but we can take it a step further. Take all those smite spells, add a few more, and fold them into the class - no more bonus action activation or annoying concentration, just different forms of divine smite that you can select from. Maybe give them some optional channel divinities or ways to modify Lay on Hands while we're at it.

Barbarians have a uniquely easy way of generating advantage - why not use that? Maybe if both dice would hit you get some bonus rider. We could also give them abilities that key off rage (e.g. when entering rage do X, once per rage do Y) or even just let them spend Rage uses to do other tricks (might need additional uses in that case).

Give rogues more uses for cunning action or something that keys off sneak attack. Maybe a way to trade sneak dice for special effects?

Monks have Ki already, but there's more we could be doing with that. You're still going to have to solve the "Stun is the best" problem and maybe give more Ki, but there's definitely potential there.

Rangers, just make Hunter's Mark a class feature already and give them additional things that key off marking opponents. Maybe give them some traps and tricks to throw out in combat too, idk.

These are just some random ideas, but you get the idea. There's a lot more potential for interesting martial options than just giving everyone maneuvers.

[Magicspook]

Isn't this basically how 4e worked? Maybe you should check that edition out.

Im in the process of writing an alternative gaming system (just for fun) and I gotta say it is very easy to fall into the same traps as dnd. Partially because dnd is what I'm used to, but also because it's just so much easier to imagine ways to make a caster's turn interesting than a warrior's.

[Millstone85]

Isn't this basically how 4e worked? Maybe you should check that edition out.Things I liked about 4e martial exploits:

The division in at-will/encounter/daily. Note that "encounter" ones recharged on a 5-minute rest.
Some of them being a "stance", lasting for 5 minutes once taken.
Some of them being "reliable", being expended only on a hit.

Things I disliked about 4e martial exploits:

The name. Yeah, a martial maneuver sounds better.
No distinctive mechanic from other powers, like arcane spells. The superiority die solves this.
No overlapping between the lists of different classes, yet little variety. So many wasted pages!

[KorvinStarmast]

"All martials should have maneuvers" is a common sentiment but not one that I agree with. A risk is that the pace of play will slow down - though I tend to agree that Battle Master as standard Fighter chassis would have been a great template.

[Glorthindel]

I guess the sticking point for at-will maneuvers is the bonus damage. If thats the case, just detach the bonus damage from maneuvers (and give it back at the original "x times per short rest") then allow the maneuver effects to be applied at will.

[stoutstien]

I think it boils down to the inflexibly of the the attack action rather than the expansion of maneuvers to everyone.

[Morty]

I think it boils down to the inflexibly of the the attack action rather than the expansion of maneuvers to everyone.

There are, as I see it, two broad paths to giving more varied options to physical martial combat. One is to make their baseline options more varied and attractive, the other is to give martial characters a bunch of special moves. D&D has never had the former, but it has on occasion had the latter - each time it did, it made people very angry and 5E nuked it from orbit. So when people try to address the subject, they tend to gravitate towards maneuvers.

[Lacco]

Thoughts on this idea? I know similar ideas have been proposed before. Are there other/better ways this could be done?

I have seen it done, but not in D&D.

Also: deck of cards idea = yes as a help, not as randomizer.


A risk is that the pace of play will slow down - though I tend to agree that Battle Master as standard Fighter chassis would have been a great template.

If the rules for the maneuver can fit on a card and can be checked by a single person (meaning: player rolls, GM checks and states result, without having to check a ruleset), shouldn't really slow down the game.

Except for the standard "which one should I use?" delay, which can be mitigated by several ways.

[Slipjig]

I'd really like this for Monks. I feel like tripping people or throwing them judo-style should be something they excel at.

Though I do feel that some maneuvers are more thematically appropriate to certain classes than others.

[Man_Over_Game]

Isn't this basically how 4e worked? Maybe you should check that edition out.

Not quite. 4e had curated lists of powers you picked from for every separate class.

It's more like all Rangers picked from a list of Ranger Cantrips, Ranger Short Rest Powers, and Ranger Long Rest Powers. You picked 2 cantrips, 2 encounter powers, and 1 daily at level 1, I believe, and the level 1 options had about 4 for each category.

So Rangers had ~4 different Long Rest powers, while Barbarians had a different list of ~4 Long Rest powers to pick from. Each class played pretty separately and generally had their own unique mechanics (although several of them were very similar to each other, such as Rogue and Ranger cantrips and such).



As for the thread topic, I've always liked the idea that Martials could spend a Hit Die as a Superiority Die with half value (rounded down, minimum of 1). So a Barbarian could spend a 1d12 Hit Die, roll a 5, and have it be treated as a 2 for the Battlemaster maneuver. This way, you don't have to come up with gatekeeping rules that seem arbitrary (only THESE classes get this cool feature!) while still favoring martial combatants (as they'll make more weapon attacks and have larger Hit Dice to spend).

[stoutstien]

There are, as I see it, two broad paths to giving more varied options to physical martial combat. One is to make their baseline options more varied and attractive, the other is to give martial characters a bunch of special moves. D&D has never had the former, but it has on occasion had the latter - each time it did, it made people very angry and 5E nuked it from orbit. So when people try to address the subject, they tend to gravitate towards maneuvers.

Aye. I personally just expanded the concept of specific weapon options via tags to give players the flexibility to pick then up if they want but not forcing it onto the classes themselves for those who want to avoid such complexity.

[strangebloke]

Eldritch and Rune knights with BM abilities by default seem pretty monstrous. Not overpowered, actually. If anything that's what I would shoot for with martials.

At-will seems like a big mistake both because of the damage and because the riders are legitimately too powerful to be spammed 6+ times a turn even at high levels.

Like consider the following: You can use trip attack to send a flying creature prone, which causes them to fall and take some (potentially massive) damage. A ranged BM with at-will maneuvers could force a dragon to save-or-suck eight or nine times in a row. Which, okay, that's a 17th level BM, but 5 times in a round at level 5 is also pretty silly. Sure, monks can do the same thing, but with a lot more restrictions.

Basically I don't think you can extend the maneuvers system so much without running into some weird edge cases. You'd need a lot of new/more powerful maneuvers to really make it work.

[MaxWilson]

I know it's a common feeling that martials feel less impressive than spellcasters, especially at higher levels. My first thought was to give them the Martial Adept feat for free, but honestly that feat is kind of underwhelming for non-Battle Masters. But I thought I'd take the concept and see if I could adapt it into something more useful.

...

Thoughts on this idea? I know similar ideas have been proposed before. Are there other/better ways this could be done?

My observation: there's already a fair number of at-will "martial" maneuvers in the game, such as DMG Disarm, Climb Aboard A Bigger Creature, Shove, and Grapple, plus throwing nets, opening and closing doors and windows, applying poison to weapons, etc.

However, there are many people who seem unsatisfied with these things because they aren't restricted to special buttons that only certain classes can press.

I personally don't understand this mentality, and to me the fact that a high-level Fighter gets three or four as many Disarm/grapple/shove attempts as a wizard every round is precisely what makes the Fighter good at disarming/grappling/etc., and about 50% better than a Paladin or Ranger. I think fueling things with Attack economy is awesome for precisely this reason: it automatically makes warriors better at these things than anyone else (pretty much--Expertise can help compensate to some degree, especially if a PC has another source of extra attack, e.g. a Roguesinger with Expertise and Extra Attack is good at grappling despite having only two attacks).

Anyway, I've added a couple of special maneuvers to my game such as Parry (essentially, sacrifice attack(s) to substitute your attack roll for AC on as many subsequent attacks this round as the attacks you sacrificed) and a vitals attack (-5 to hit for +5 to damage, with any weapon, doesn't stack with Sharpshooter/GWM -5/+10; essentially Sharpshooter/GWM are just getting a +5 to damage bonus when they do vitals attacks).

What I seek is elegance: make the smallest tweak possible to the game that opens up play options for everybody while adding realism and fun. Some people hate this approach and look for class-specific buttons to push that no one else can push.

Lesson: no matter what approach you try, you will make some people happy and some people unhappy.

[strangebloke]

My observation: there's already a fair number of at-will "martial" maneuvers in the game, such as DMG Disarm, Climb Aboard A Bigger Creature, Shove, and Grapple, plus throwing nets, opening and closing doors and windows, applying poison to weapons, etc.

However, there are many people who seem unsatisfied with these things because they aren't restricted to special buttons that only certain classes can press.

I think everyone likes the grappling and shoving rules, they just want more options than those two specific things, and more options for characters like barbarians and rogues who don't benefit from having as many extra attacks, and they also want options that scale into the lategame which grappling and shoving really doesn't.

"But what about all the other things I listed?" Well, options that are in the DMG simply don't exist at most tables because even if a DM knows about them and allows them the players often don't know about them at all, which is to my mind a serious oversite on the composition of these books. Nets are infamously and hilariously poorly designed and the character that's best at using them is probably not a martial.

As for doors, all I'll say is that you're the only person in the world who would consider that a 'maneuver.'

[OldTrees1]

At-will seems like a big mistake both because of the damage and because the riders are legitimately too powerful to be spammed 6+ times a turn even at high levels.

The OP mentions only regenerating 1 die per round, so you can only spam them 1 time per round.

At 5th you could do 2 dice in round 1 and 1 in round 2+.
At 17th you could do 4 dice in round 1 (assuming you had 4 attacks) and 1 in round 2+.

[Man_Over_Game]

My observation: there's already a fair number of at-will "martial" maneuvers in the game, such as DMG Disarm, Climb Aboard A Bigger Creature, Shove, and Grapple, plus throwing nets, opening and closing doors and windows, applying poison to weapons, etc.

My concern with these is how niche all of these are.

Disarm spends an attack to make a contested Athletics check where the defender chooses between Athletics and Acrobatics. Attacker gets Advantage if he's larger than the Defender, Defender gets Advantage if he's holding his weapon with two hands or if he's larger than the Attacker. Players are either the same size or smaller than the enemy they're disarming, so this is more likely to work against the player. Also, the effect causes the weapon to be dropped, can be picked up again if the item isn't moved afterwards, and the player may not have a free hand necessary to pick it up (might be able to kick it I guess). Most enemies with weapons also usually carry more than one.

Climbing on top of a creature takes an Action, and the creature you're climbing still has the potential of attacking you. Essentially, it's an Action to gain the potential of Advantage on your attacks, but it may just be more worth it to use your Action to attack.

Shove/Grapple I can see getting a little more value, but they're still fairly circumstantial. Grappling requires a free hand and keeps the enemy from moving away from you, when most enemies are probably going to want to stay near you in the first place. Shove can knock enemies prone, but that can be detrimental if your party has a number of ranged attackers.

Nets have Disadvantage to throw, can be destroyed with an attack. Poisons are crazy expensive.


Personally, I'd be totally down for reducing how much damage my attacks did if I could copy some cantrip effects, like slowing an enemy or taunting them.

It'd also be nice if there were options for ranged combatants too. Ranged weapon combat is incredibly boring.

[MaxWilson]

I think everyone likes the grappling and shoving rules, they just want more options than those two specific things, and more options for characters like barbarians and rogues who don't benefit from having as many extra attacks, and they also want options that scale into the lategame which grappling and shoving really doesn't.

"But what about all the other things I listed?" (A) Well, options that are in the DMG simply don't exist at most tables because even if a DM knows about them and allows them the players often don't know about them at all, which is to my mind a serious oversite on the composition of these books. Nets are infamously and hilariously poorly designed and the character that's best at using them is probably not a martial.

(B) As for doors, all I'll say is that you're the only person in the world who would consider that a 'maneuver.'


(A) I'd be more sympathetic to this viewpoint if the PHB didn't outright encourage players to do everything the DMG permits and more.


Actions in Combat [PHB 192]
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here [Attack/Cast A Spell/Dash/Disengage/Dodge/Help/Hide/Ready/Search/Use An Object], an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise...

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure...

Improvising an Action [PHB 193]
Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character's ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as you improvise.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

The DMG gives the DM examples of how to resolve such attempts, so if your argument were "players attempt Disarms, etc., but quickly get discouraged because most DMs don't read the DMG and so resolve the improvised actions in ways that are un-fun and underpowered," well, maybe I'd be sympathetic to your argument that the DMG is too out-of-the-way. But you're arguing that players don't even attempt other things--you seem incredulous (!) that a PC might close a door to gain a tactical advantage, which leaves me thinking that the problem isn't the DMG. Somehow the players you're thinking of are playing D&D like a white room game, without interacting with the environment. Why?

(B) I can 100% assure you that I'm not the only person in the real world or on the Interwebs who thinks opening and closing doors is useful in combat. (Some people even use Arcane Lock to turn those doors into mini-Walls of Force.) As a DM I use doors relatively frequently, either secret doors (to hit PCs from an unexpected angle where they think they are safe) or locked doors (to buy time for defenders or reinforcements to arrive and engage), or regular doors (primarily to counter missile fire but also has some uses against melee).

================================================== =====


My concern with these is how niche all of these are.

Disarm spends an attack to make a contested Athletics check where the defender chooses between Athletics and Acrobatics. Attacker gets Advantage if he's larger than the Defender, Defender gets Advantage if he's holding his weapon with two hands or if he's larger than the Attacker. Players are either the same size or smaller than the enemy they're disarming, so this is more likely to work against the player. Also, the effect causes the weapon to be dropped, can be picked up again if the item isn't moved afterwards, and the player may not have a free hand necessary to pick it up (might be able to kick it I guess). Most enemies with weapons also usually carry more than one.

Climbing on top of a creature takes an Action, and the creature you're climbing still has the potential of attacking you. Essentially, it's an Action to gain the potential of Advantage on your attacks, but it may just be more worth it to use your Action to attack.

Shove/Grapple I can see getting a little more value, but they're still fairly circumstantial. Grappling requires a free hand and keeps the enemy from moving away from you, when most enemies are probably going to want to stay near you in the first place. Shove can knock enemies prone, but that can be detrimental if your party has a number of ranged attackers.

Nets have Disadvantage to throw, can be destroyed with an attack. Poisons are crazy expensive.

Personally, I'd be totally down for reducing how much damage my attacks did if I could copy some cantrip effects, like slowing an enemy or taunting them.

It'd also be nice if there were options for ranged combatants too. Ranged weapon combat is incredibly boring.

They're not all that niche individually, and when you put the whole package together you get tactical complexity and a fair amount of power.

For example, anything that is immune to your grapple/prone due to sheer size is vulnerable to your Climb Aboard. Per the DMG, climbing aboard a larger creature can impose disadvantage and possibly make it impossible for it to target you, so this is perfect for the fighter who wants to climb up the giant's back and start GWM beating it to death from behind the base of its neck where the giant's greatsword cannot reach. (DM's discretion, but it's certainly not boring!)

Disarm is also excellent against giants because most of their damage, frankly, comes from their oversized weapons. If you can reduce a Fire Giant from 6d6+7 (28) damage per greatsword hit to 8 damage per hit with its meaty fists, that's worth doing. Does the fire giant have a backup greatsword? I mean, maybe, but it seems kind of out-of-character and unlikely, doesn't it? If you look at the fire giant in advance and ask your DM how many weapons it carries, I predict that you're more likely to see a couple of backup daggers (3d4+7=15ish) instead of backup greatswords. They've got boulders too but per DMG they usually only have 2-5 boulders total.

RE: <<Shove/Grapple I can see getting a little more value, but they're still fairly circumstantial. Grappling requires a free hand and keeps the enemy from moving away from you, when most enemies are probably going to want to stay near you in the first place. Shove can knock enemies prone, but that can be detrimental if your party has a number of ranged attackers.>>

Shove prone + grapple = enemy who very much wants to escape your grapple so it can stand up and stop attacking at disadvantage/being attacked at advantage. (BTW, ranged attackers with Sharpshooter + Crossbow Expert love shooting prone enemies with advantage.) Even if all you've got is a regular grapple, without prone, if you are playing smart the monster probably still does want to get away from you so it can hit someone else, like a wizard. If for some reason you really are who it wants to be in melee with, then you don't need to grapple, you can just Dodge or something. It depends on the situation, but IME grapple and shove are useful in more combats than not--only when you're greatly outnumbered or the enemy is immune to grappling would you not even consider at least one shove or grapple, as a warrior-type PC.

RE: <<Players are either the same size or smaller than the enemy they're disarming, so this is more likely to work against the player>>,

Yes, that factor works against the player, but the sheer number of attacks PCs spit out per round (Action Surge, feats) and the ease with which they get bonuses to hit (advantage from Help, +d8 from Bardic Inspiration or +d4 from Bless) still makes it a strong strategy unless you're facing a ridiculous number of giants, in which case you should be running instead of making weapon attacks.

RE: <<Personally, I'd be totally down for reducing how much damage my attacks did if I could copy some cantrip effects, like slowing an enemy or taunting them.>>

You can try, but don't overlook weapon-centric things too. Why not try to cut a monster's hamstring? Stab it in the eyes, or at least in the head so blood gets in its eyes? Disable a weapon hand? Parry a blow? Or lead it over a rope bridge that's too weak for it so it falls? (You can even set up your own rope bridges and swings in advance, as you're exploring the dungeon, to give you tricks to fall back on.) None of these are guaranteed to work, but you don't need a guarantee, just an open-minded DM who is willing to do what the PHB says to do and tell you what's impossible (in this particular case or in general) and what requires rolls. If your DM needs inspiration, point him back to the DMG chapter on Disarm/Climb Aboard/Overrun/etc. as examples, and then have your PC attempt something along those lines, like taunting a monster or cutting a hamstring. (Suggestion to DM: allow a PC to trade an attack for a hamstringing attempt, which if successful imposes the effects of caltrops on the monster, slowing it by 10' until it gets magical healing.)

[SouthpawSoldier]

This is inspiration behind one of my favorite third party books, Beyond Damage Dice. It lists mini-maneuvers for every weapon in the game, as well as a few original weapons.

Short draw a sword and use the pommel to strike an enemy's sternum or face to stun them. Pole vault with a quarterstaff. Strike two enemies with one swing of a greatsword. If you're proficient with a weapon, you get to use the maneuvers.

[strangebloke]

The OP mentions only regenerating 1 die per round, so you can only spam them 1 time per round.

At 5th you could do 2 dice in round 1 and 1 in round 2+.
At 17th you could do 4 dice in round 1 (assuming you had 4 attacks) and 1 in round 2+.
Ah my bad. I still do think that's an overtuned feature, and it doesn't really resolve what I see as the core issue here. You're ultimately choosing more and more maneuvers from an ever-shrinking list. You presumably pick the best ones at the start and then are left with less good ones at higher level. In other words you run into the same problem that fighters and particularly battlemasters already run into, which is that their options at high levels are less interesting than low level options.

Still would be a massive improvement for barbarians and rogues and monks ofc.


(A) I'd be more sympathetic to this viewpoint if the PHB didn't outright encourage players to do everything the DMG permits and more.


Actions in Combat [PHB 192]
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here [Attack/Cast A Spell/Dash/Disengage/Dodge/Help/Hide/Ready/Search/Use An Object], an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise...

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure...

Improvising an Action [PHB 193]
Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character's ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as you improvise.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

The DMG gives the DM examples of how to resolve such attempts, so if your argument were "players attempt Disarms, etc., but quickly get discouraged because most DMs don't read the DMG and so resolve the improvised actions in ways that are un-fun and underpowered," well, maybe I'd be sympathetic to your argument that the DMG is too out-of-the-way. But you're arguing that players don't even attempt other things--you seem incredulous (!) that a PC might close a door to gain a tactical advantage, which leaves me thinking that the problem isn't the DMG. Somehow the players you're thinking of are playing D&D like a white room game, without interacting with the environment. Why?

(B) I can 100% assure you that I'm not the only person in the real world or on the Interwebs who thinks opening and closing doors is useful in combat. (Some people even use Arcane Lock to turn those doors into mini-Walls of Force.) As a DM I use doors relatively frequently, either secret doors (to hit PCs from an unexpected angle where they think they are safe) or locked doors (to buy time for defenders or reinforcements to arrive and engage), or regular doors (primarily to counter missile fire but also has some uses against melee).

{scrubbed}. The problem is that martials don't get interesting high level class features and lack for unique options.

Saying "There are Generic Options such as opening a door" is completely unhelpful in such a context. Anyone can open a door. Anyone can do all the things you list, and some of the things you list (like nets and climbing atop an enemy) actually have negative synergy with typical "martial" class features.

Yes, grappling, shoving, poison, and disarming do scale with attacks. For fighters, these options scale throughout the game, sort of but the uses for grappling, shoving, and disarming become less common as the game goes on because of the increasing ubiquity of large and huge enemies who don't rely on weapons. (and also because melee play becomes harder) For other martials, these abilities either don't scale at all (rogues) or scale about as well as they do for paladins, rangers, certain bards, and blade warlocks. As I know you're aware, there's very little mechanical reason to choose to play a barbarian over say a hexblade, especially in a t3 or t4 campaign, and that's the problem we're trying to address.

And yes, "improvised actions" are possible, but that's both (1) still irrelevant to what OP is trying to accomplish and (2) a classic rule zero fallacy, even if there is some guidance for niche actions in the DMG.

[MaxWilson]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{scrubbed}

[Trask]

I agree with your motivations, but I feel that perhaps its going a bit overboard. I'd start smaller and see how that worked, maybe give all martial classes Martial Adept as a bonus feat, and perhaps more than once, depending on class.

[strangebloke]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I didn't intentionally switch topics, sorry for being unclear. The primary point I was striving for is that your core argument (that "there are a lot of generic options and they scale with attacks so martials effectively do have maneuvers") was flawed because


martials don't as a rule have more attacks than casters. Most casters can get 2-3 attacks a round in t1 and t2 which is as much or more than most martials can do, monks using flurry and t3/t4 fighters aside.
lots of the options you list don't scale with attacks. Interacting with doors and throwing nets and climbing atop creatures all require full actions. (well except for nets, sometimes)
DMG options like poison and disarming aren't clearly conveyed and people aren't aware of them or don't use them. (granted this was a tangent)
shoving and grappling lose utility as you level.
it would be nice to have more specific options for high level martials anyway, regardless of the number of generic options available.

[Kane0]

Okay, but only the ones that dont make you fight better.

[MaxWilson]

I didn't intentionally switch topics, sorry for being unclear. The primary point I was striving for is that your core argument (that "there are a lot of generic options and they scale with attacks so martials effectively do have maneuvers") was flawed because


martials don't as a rule have more attacks than casters. Most casters can get 2-3 attacks a round in t1 and t2 which is as much or more than most martials can do, monks using flurry and t3/t4 fighters aside.
lots of the options you list don't scale with attacks. Interacting with doors and throwing nets and climbing atop creatures all require full actions. (well except for nets, sometimes)
DMG options like poison and disarming aren't clearly conveyed and people aren't aware of them or don't use them.
shoving and grappling lose utility as you level.


I reject your paraphrase of my post.

(1) OP asked for thoughts/reactions, I gave mine. It wasn't an "argument." Arguments are intended to sell a particular viewpoint, whereas I'm happy if OP gains even one interesting insight from my post.

(2) It isn't correct to describe my observation as "there are a lot of generic options and they scale with attacks so martials effectively do have maneuvers". My observation was that "different people have different preferences, and my own is to add more improvised or formalized options modeled after DMG Disarm that are rooted in existing economies instead of class-specific neo-Vancian 'buttons', but inevitably some people will hate that approach and want the opposite". Elsewhere in this thread I gave other examples such as hamstringing modeled on caltrop usage and stabbing eyes to temporarily blind enemies (either with actual damage to eye tissue or with simple blood in eyes, whatever the DM decides).

You think you're disagreeing with me but you're really just proving exactly the point I was trying to make: you can't please everyone.


My observation: there's already a fair number of at-will "martial" maneuvers in the game, such as DMG Disarm, Climb Aboard A Bigger Creature, Shove, and Grapple, plus throwing nets, opening and closing doors and windows, applying poison to weapons, etc.

However, there are many people who seem unsatisfied with these things because they aren't restricted to special buttons that only certain classes can press.

I personally don't understand this mentality, and to me the fact that a high-level Fighter gets three or four as many Disarm/grapple/shove attempts as a wizard every round is precisely what makes the Fighter good at disarming/grappling/etc., and about 50% better than a Paladin or Ranger. I think fueling things with Attack economy is awesome for precisely this reason: it automatically makes warriors better at these things than anyone else (pretty much--Expertise can help compensate to some degree, especially if a PC has another source of extra attack, e.g. a Roguesinger with Expertise and Extra Attack is good at grappling despite having only two attacks).

Anyway, I've added a couple of special maneuvers to my game such as Parry (essentially, sacrifice attack(s) to substitute your attack roll for AC on as many subsequent attacks this round as the attacks you sacrificed) and a vitals attack (-5 to hit for +5 to damage, with any weapon, doesn't stack with Sharpshooter/GWM -5/+10; essentially Sharpshooter/GWM are just getting a +5 to damage bonus when they do vitals attacks).

What I seek is elegance: make the smallest tweak possible to the game that opens up play options for everybody while adding realism and fun. Some people hate this approach and look for class-specific buttons to push that no one else can push.

Lesson: no matter what approach you try, you will make some people happy and some people unhappy.

[BerzerkerUnit]

To the OP. I have a write up for how I work iron my Homebrew

[OldTrees1]

Ah my bad. I still do think that's an overtuned feature, and it doesn't really resolve what I see as the core issue here. You're ultimately choosing more and more maneuvers from an ever-shrinking list. You presumably pick the best ones at the start and then are left with less good ones at higher level. In other words you run into the same problem that fighters and particularly battlemasters already run into, which is that their options at high levels are less interesting than low level options.

Still would be a massive improvement for barbarians and rogues and monks ofc.

Yeah that was my feeling too. The "pick one at a time from this list" framework does not do a good job of scaling with levels unless more and more of the list unlocks as a function of level. If the entire list is available in Tier 1, then you will be selecting your least favorite Tier 1 option when you are in Tier 4.

[strangebloke]

I reject your paraphrase of my post.

(1) OP asked for thoughts/reactions, I gave mine. It wasn't an "argument." Arguments are intended to sell a particular viewpoint, whereas I'm happy if OP gains even one interesting insight from my post.

(2) It isn't correct to describe my observation as "there are a lot of generic options and they scale with attacks so martials effectively do have maneuvers". My observation was that "different people have different preferences, and my own is to add more improvised or formalized options modeled after DMG Disarm that are rooted in existing economies instead of class-specific neo-Vancian 'buttons', but inevitably some people will hate that approach and want the opposite". Elsewhere in this thread I gave other examples such as hamstringing modeled on caltrop usage.

You think you're disagreeing with me but you're really just proving exactly the point I was trying to make: you can't please everyone.

Do you agree or disagree with OP's premise that martials lack interesting class features? Do you think that generic options solve this issue because they scale with the number of attacks? Do you think OP's solution works as a method of solving the lack of interesting options for high-level class features?

If your only point is that "people like different solutions" then, well, obviously, but that just feels like an attempt to shut down discussion.

{Scrubbed}

[Zevox]

This is inspiration behind one of my favorite third party books, Beyond Damage Dice. It lists mini-maneuvers for every weapon in the game, as well as a few original weapons.

Short draw a sword and use the pommel to strike an enemy's sternum or face to stun them. Pole vault with a quarterstaff. Strike two enemies with one swing of a greatsword. If you're proficient with a weapon, you get to use the maneuvers.
Was going to mention this myself. My DM started using it last year, with adjustments to a couple of maneuvers we deemed seemed overtuned or un-fun (sundering maneuvers, mainly), and our group has been pretty happy with it. My current Paladin uses a mace and trident specifically because of their maneuvers, which let him force a con save vs stun on Humanoids for the mace and parry and disarm a weapon-using foe with the trident. We had a dramatic moment where he did the latter against another Paladin mini-boss we had to take down but he didn't want to kill, which was a lot of fun.

[Man_Over_Game]

Ah my bad. I still do think that's an overtuned feature, and it doesn't really resolve what I see as the core issue here. You're ultimately choosing more and more maneuvers from an ever-shrinking list. You presumably pick the best ones at the start and then are left with less good ones at higher level. In other words you run into the same problem that fighters and particularly battlemasters already run into, which is that their options at high levels are less interesting than low level options.

So the concern is that they don't really get all that much cooler, because their options become more and more limited, and that being able to use a maneuver at no cost for half of your attacks is too good?

I'd agree with that. But I think it's on the right track.


An interesting conundrum I've found with a lot of these discussions is that folks are not willing to offer the overpowered solution to any of martial-related problems (skills, superiority dice, etc), because there's no limit to it. You either end up with the 50% BM Maneuver problem like before, or Rogues are too darn stealthy after the skill buff, or some other problem that constantly gets in the way.

The way casters get around this problem is by not being overpowered all of the time. And they pull that off via a universal, long-term value currency: Spell Slots.

Problem is, Martials don't have a universal currency....except Hit Dice.

Let Martials spend Hit Dice on maneuvers, any one they want. Hell, let them spend multiple on the same attack.

Powerful? Who cares! Hit Dice refresh half as fast as Spell Slots do. Because of the fact that a full caster regularly has about 70% more spell slots than they do Hit Dice (thus a Level X Wizard can cast 1.7 spells when the Level X Fighter uses 1.0 Hit Dice when both are full), and the fact that you only refresh half of your Hit Dice on a Long Rest (meaning they need to be twice as powerful as a spell slot to be considered getting the same value), a Hit Die would need to be worth 3.4 times the value of a spell slot for it to be considered an equal choice to a spell slot.

Considering that "Dealing 1d8 damage and knocking an enemy prone with a 10 damage weapon attack" doesn't carry quite the same punch as a Fireball, I don't think it's going to cause too many balance problems.

So... Hit Dice. That's my guess. If players need healing, that just encourages more teamwork or preparing. Weaknesses are how oldschool DND pulled players together.

[Hytheter]

If I was redesigning the Fighter from scratch I'd probably make it spend hit dice for maneuvers as a baseline mechanic, with a provision for gaining them back more easily.



I personally don't understand this mentality, and to me the fact that a high-level Fighter gets three or four as many Disarm/grapple/shove attempts as a wizard every round is precisely what makes the Fighter good at disarming/grappling/etc.,

Disarm is an action in its own right, it doesn't replace a single attack like shove and grapple.

[MaxWilson]

Disarm is an action in its own right, it doesn't replace a single attack like shove and grapple.

I think you misremember.

My DMG (page 271) just says "A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target's grasp." Unlike grapple or shove, it isn't even restricted to attacks that occur as part of the Attack action, so you could theoretically use e.g. an offhand bonus action attack from dual wielding, or Martial Arts, to do the Disarm. In fact the word "action" isn't used once in the whole rule text of DMG Disarm.

[Hytheter]

I think you misremember.

My DMG (page 271) just says "A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target's grasp." Unlike grapple or shove, it isn't even restricted to attacks that occur as part of the Attack action, so you could theoretically use e.g. an offhand bonus action attack from dual wielding, or Martial Arts, to do the Disarm. In fact the word "action" isn't used once in the whole rule text of DMG Disarm.

But it's listed under "Action Options."

[Morty]

Aye. I personally just expanded the concept of specific weapon options via tags to give players the flexibility to pick then up if they want but not forcing it onto the classes themselves for those who want to avoid such complexity.

It's difficult to argue about that in a vacuum, but I'm a bit sceptical about this solution. I feel like it might be fine on low levels, but fail to scale. Then again, given that low levels is where the game is typically actually played...

I do remember that there was a plan for weapon-specific abilities at some point during the playtest. But they took up too much space and slowed down combat, so they were cut. The goal was apparently to make sure every combat round doesn't take longer on the table than in the game's fictional world. So here we are.

[stoutstien]

It's difficult to argue about that in a vacuum, but I'm a bit sceptical about this solution. I feel like it might be fine on low levels, but fail to scale. Then again, given that low levels is where the game is typically actually played...

I do remember that there was a plan for weapon-specific abilities at some point during the playtest. But they took up too much space and slowed down combat, so they were cut. The goal was apparently to make sure every combat round doesn't take longer on the table than in the game's fictional world. So here we are.

Aye. Not a perfect solution but simple ones rarely are.

[Joe the Rat]

I guess the sticking point for at-will maneuvers is the bonus damage. If thats the case, just detach the bonus damage from maneuvers (and give it back at the original "x times per short rest") then allow the maneuver effects to be applied at will.

Backing up a bit, this was roughly my first blush thought - adding a rider to attacks (1/round in my mental model) sans the superiority boost. That does mean some of the maneuvers are useless, but then I'd curtail the freebie list to a few set tricks: shove, trip, menace, goad (because you need the extra stickiness), grapple, and quick toss; maybe add riposte and brace. Pick two, reset options on a long rest. Besides making the superiority dice a BM/MA function, it also gives them a deeper pool of options, including the noncombat ones. You are getting more dynamic options with some differentiation from the Battle Master.

The existing grapple and shove (and disarm) still carry value - there are times when having to land a hit will be counterproductive, and is always available if your free rider fails.

One question is how are we defining martials? Just the d10+ bros, or do rogues count? What about monks? Or is it Extra Attack that defines? Or how about going the other way - what if we make this a Fighter schtick only?

[Greywander]

This thread's been quite active, and it's become rather daunting to respond to everyone, so I'm not going to try. Thanks for all the replies and discussion, I've definitely only skimmed some of the longer posts, but it's been interesting to hear people's thoughts on the subject. Nevertheless, I'll try to respond to a few specific things.


"All martials should have maneuvers" is a common sentiment but not one that I agree with.

All fighters should have maneuvers, for sure - or to put it another way, Battle Master should be baked in to the core class. The Fighter is supposed to be an elite warrior, the epitome of martial skill, and I feel maneuvers capture that. There's a lot more they could do with it, especially in the back half of the game, but it's thematic to the class and I feel it should be exclusive to them.
Agree and disagree. If combat maneuvers were limited to one class, fighters would definitely be the most thematic fit. I definitely agree that BM should have been baked into the core fighter class. However, I think it could also work to give maneuvers to everyone. Fighters are the martial experts, so it makes the most sense to give it to them, but it's not as though all other martials are just swinging erratically. They've all been trained. I can definitely see giving fighters some kind of edge, whether it's more maneuvers, bigger or more superiority dice, or whatever, but I think it works for all martials to get a basic combat maneuver package.


But more to the point, just slapping maneuvers onto everybody is lazy. I'm not saying that only fighters should get interesting cool things they can do. Rather, the other martial classes should get similar things that are more thematic to them and fit better with their mechanics.

Paladins have smite, but we can take it a step further. Take all those smite spells, add a few more, and fold them into the class - no more bonus action activation or annoying concentration, just different forms of divine smite that you can select from. Maybe give them some optional channel divinities or ways to modify Lay on Hands while we're at it.

Barbarians have a uniquely easy way of generating advantage - why not use that? Maybe if both dice would hit you get some bonus rider. We could also give them abilities that key off rage (e.g. when entering rage do X, once per rage do Y) or even just let them spend Rage uses to do other tricks (might need additional uses in that case).

Give rogues more uses for cunning action or something that keys off sneak attack. Maybe a way to trade sneak dice for special effects?

Monks have Ki already, but there's more we could be doing with that. You're still going to have to solve the "Stun is the best" problem and maybe give more Ki, but there's definitely potential there.

Rangers, just make Hunter's Mark a class feature already and give them additional things that key off marking opponents. Maybe give them some traps and tricks to throw out in combat too, idk.

These are just some random ideas, but you get the idea. There's a lot more potential for interesting martial options than just giving everyone maneuvers.
Quoting this whole thing because these are genuinely good suggestions and this needs more visibility.


I guess the sticking point for at-will maneuvers is the bonus damage. If thats the case, just detach the bonus damage from maneuvers (and give it back at the original "x times per short rest") then allow the maneuver effects to be applied at will.
Indeed, I think it would be best to axe the superiority dice altogether. Most maneuvers function fine without it, all you're losing is a bonus to your attack or damage roll. It would be different if, like Swords bard flourishes, the feature had no effect without the die roll. Some maneuvers don't have any effect without the die, but most do.


Also: deck of cards idea = yes as a help, not as randomizer.
I do think it's an interesting idea. It might be more appropriate to rework it for a magic system, perhaps for some sort of gambling-themed spellcasting class.


I'd really like this for Monks. I feel like tripping people or throwing them judo-style should be something they excel at.

Though I do feel that some maneuvers are more thematically appropriate to certain classes than others.
Indeed, I agree with Hytheter that maneuvers in general fit best with fighters. I do prefer to keep things open and allow players to make their own choices regarding customization. For example, I had a character concept that was mechanically a Kensei monk, but aesthetically was just a speedy, unarmored warrior. Allowing people to choose the maneuvers that fit best with their character concept seems like a better decision than forcing them into certain options based on class.

Plus, I was kind of thinking that this would be a general solution that wouldn't interact at all with classes or multiclassing. If you make it class-specific, then it would end up being affected by multiclassing. What I had in mind was a system that scales with character level (like cantrips do), not class level, so your levels in specific classes are irrelevant.


My observation: there's already a fair number of at-will "martial" maneuvers in the game, such as DMG Disarm, Climb Aboard A Bigger Creature, Shove, and Grapple, plus throwing nets, opening and closing doors and windows, applying poison to weapons, etc.

However, there are many people who seem unsatisfied with these things because they aren't restricted to special buttons that only certain classes can press.
Honestly, expanding this system does seem like a great idea. Forgoing one attack in order to perform some other effect could be really useful. The main difference between that and maneuvers seems to be giving up the attack, and this could make at-will(-ish) maneuvers too strong. (But probably not, considering how powerful spellcasters get at higher levels.)


What I seek is elegance: make the smallest tweak possible to the game that opens up play options for everybody while adding realism and fun. Some people hate this approach and look for class-specific buttons to push that no one else can push.

Lesson: no matter what approach you try, you will make some people happy and some people unhappy.
I also have a great appreciation for elegance. But sometimes I like to just tinker and see what happens when I change something. It can be fun to make big changes and see what happens. Simple, small, elegant changes are definitely the most practical, though.


Problem is, Martials don't have a universal currency....except Hit Dice.

Let Martials spend Hit Dice on maneuvers, any one they want. Hell, let them spend multiple on the same attack.

If I was redesigning the Fighter from scratch I'd probably make it spend hit dice for maneuvers as a baseline mechanic, with a provision for gaining them back more easily.
Definitely an interesting idea. Hit dice could stand in for superiority dice, and more martially oriented classes get bigger hit dice. (This ironically means barbarians would have the most effective combat maneuvers, the one martial class you'd expect to fight more brutishly without any tact.)

I do like the at-will-ish idea, where they can use it once per round for free, but without any superiority die. Having the option to also augment the maneuver with a hit die, or expend the hit die to use an additional maneuver during a round could be interesting. At higher levels, though, you'd have a lot of hit dice... Although perhaps it's balanced by also needed hit dice to heal during a short rest, so you don't want to burn them all on maneuvers. That said, you'll probably get more benefit from a maneuver than you would using the hit die to heal.


So what I'm thinking now is this:

If you are proficient with at least one martial weapon, or later gain proficiency with a martial weapon, you qualify for this benefit. (So rogues, monks, druids, Hexblades, and some clerics all qualify.)
Those who qualify learn two maneuvers of their choice at 1st level, and learn one additional maneuver at 5th, 11th, and 17th level. Fighters get one extra maneuver at fighter levels 1, 5, 11, and 17. (Not sure where BM fighters fit in this.)
Once per round, you can use a maneuver. You regain the ability to use a maneuver at the start of your next turn. This allows off-turn maneuvers, such as Parry or Riposte.
You can also spend hit dice to use a maneuver, treating the hit die as the superiority die. This is separate from the "once per round" use, and can be used as many times as you have attacks/hit dice.

If we wanted to restrict this a bit more, we could gate it behind Extra Attack. That way you have to wait a bit to get it, and classes without Extra Attack wouldn't get it (i.e. rogues, druids, or clerics).

[MaxWilson]

Honestly, expanding this system does seem like a great idea. Forgoing one attack in order to perform some other effect could be really useful. The main difference between that and maneuvers seems to be giving up the attack, and this could make at-will(-ish) maneuvers too strong. (But probably not, considering how powerful spellcasters get at higher levels.)

...

Definitely an interesting idea. Hit dice could stand in for superiority dice, and more martially oriented classes get bigger hit dice. (This ironically means barbarians would have the most effective combat maneuvers, the one martial class you'd expect to fight more brutishly without any tact.)

I do like the at-will-ish idea, where they can use it once per round for free, but without any superiority die. Having the option to also augment the maneuver with a hit die, or expend the hit die to use an additional maneuver during a round could be interesting. At higher levels, though, you'd have a lot of hit dice... Although perhaps it's balanced by also needed hit dice to heal during a short rest, so you don't want to burn them all on maneuvers. That said, you'll probably get more benefit from a maneuver than you would using the hit die to heal.

Food for thought:

I suspect the reason you're trying to limit maneuvers to cost hit dice is to prevent them from becoming too common and replacing regular attacks, right? An alternate approach, instead of treating maneuvers as an expendable resource, would be to have prerequisites. E.g. certain things (like gagging a spellcaster) first require other things (grappling the spellcaster), and sometimes you do a thing like grappling specifically in order to unlock some other maneuver down the road. You might knock an enemy prone specifically so that your buddy the greataxe wielder can jump up in the air and land with the full force of his body on the enemy's throat.

Certain PCs might specialize in certain maneuvers to the point where they get bonuses in them, either bonuses to success rate or to effect strength/damage. (GWM/Sharpshooter -5/+10 can be viewed as a specialization, if you allow everyone and anyone to -5/+5, which BTW isn't really worth doing except against soft targets like AC 8 zombies. Against anything else it's pretty much a DPR loss or only a tiny DPR gain.)

This is sort of the GURPS: Martial Arts approach, whereas the "special maneuver N times per day" is the 5E battlemaster approach.

[Hytheter]

Agree and disagree. If combat maneuvers were limited to one class, fighters would definitely be the most thematic fit. I definitely agree that BM should have been baked into the core fighter class. However, I think it could also work to give maneuvers to everyone. Fighters are the martial experts, so it makes the most sense to give it to them, but it's not as though all other martials are just swinging erratically. They've all been trained.

I'd posit that the training of other classes is reflected in their proficiency and Extra Attack, but I understand my stance is controversial. I'll note that it's not just a matter of flavour to me - as much as it could make sense to just make the fighter's maneuvers better, I feel making it their exclusive domain enhances class identity and makes gameplay between classes more unique. And if you want your paladin to be especially talented with their weapon you can always take a feat or dip fighter.

Another alternative might give everyone maneuvers, but each class gets a different list a la spell lists. Fighters get the most if not all while everyone else gets a tighter list more keyed into their theme and specialties.


Quoting this whole thing because these are genuinely good suggestions and this needs more visibility.

Appreciated. :D



Definitely an interesting idea. Hit dice could stand in for superiority dice, and more martially oriented classes get bigger hit dice. (This ironically means barbarians would have the most effective combat maneuvers, the one martial class you'd expect to fight more brutishly without any tact.)

Well, in my "fighters only" or "curated list" models, that just makes the bigger die a unique perk of MCing Barbarian. :P


I do like the at-will-ish idea, where they can use it once per round for free, but without any superiority die. Having the option to also augment the maneuver with a hit die, or expend the hit die to use an additional maneuver during a round could be interesting. At higher levels, though, you'd have a lot of hit dice... Although perhaps it's balanced by also needed hit dice to heal during a short rest, so you don't want to burn them all on maneuvers. That said, you'll probably get more benefit from a maneuver than you would using the hit die to heal.

I forgot to mention this before but I do like the idea of some At-will capability. I don't think forgoing a die altogether is strictly necessary - as a once per turn feature, using a smaller die akin to Swords Bard should be fine, especially if it's not a starting ability (I probably wouldn't grant it at least until extra attack if not later). As for the quantity of Hit Dice, it's worth noting that this makes maneuvers more of a long rest ability unless some other provision is provided. That said, it's not a change you could make without affecting anything, and other aspects of the game might need to be reconsidered.