D&D only needs 1 “Simple” Martial

[Saelethil]

Ok, it should go without saying, but this is just my opinion.
Also, if they covered different enough concepts I’d be ok with having a couple simple Martials. For me, the Barbarian and Rogue fit the bill pretty well (although I might make a couple changes to the Barb.) as far as simple non-casters go. What I would like to see is for the Fighter to get some more complexity in the base class that the subclasses could expand on instead of needing full new subsystems for any subclass that wanted any level of complexity.
My question for those that disagree with this sentiment, why? And what does a simple fighter give you (conceptually) that you couldn’t get from a Rogue or moderately altered Barbarian (mechanically)?

Some potential Barbarian changes:
-Prof. In heavy armor & allow Rage to function while wearing it
-Add Rage damage to all (melee?) attacks
-More Rages
-Extra Attack (2) sometime in tier 3

[Dork_Forge]

Barbarian is a terrible simple martial, it gives you a raft of things to remember (both benefits and conditions) and a long rest, short duration resource to track.

Likewise, Rogue is terrible because Rogue pushes you towards a certain style of play and has a lot of different features. I still have players that confuse that they 'need' advantage to get Sneak Attack.

The Fighter works well because it's core class is so simple and paired back. You can make it into whatever you want and it is easy and not intimidating to new/casual players.

[ZRN]

. What I would like to see is for the Fighter to get some more complexity in the base class that the subclasses could expand on instead of needing full new subsystems for any subclass that wanted any level of complexity.
My question for those that disagree with this sentiment, why?
]

Let’s flip it around - what complexity do you want to add to the fighter that you think fits ALL potential fighters?

Right now if you want a martial character with a “full new subsystem” it’s easy to plug it into the fighter, which IMHO works fairly well - the psychic warrior feels different than the battle master feels different than the rune knight. How and why would you add complexity to the base class while allowing all these
Subclasses to feel satisfyingly different?

[Sindeloke]

Make a full-blown secondary system out of maneuvers, with different tiers of power and interaction with all three pillars. Create flavorful maneuvers that play into the theme of "attacks enemies with psychic power" or "buffs self with ancestral giant strength" or "supports allies with free movement and buffs" or "debilitates enemies with crowd control and combat penalties" and divide those maneuvers amongst the subclasses. Sprinkle in a few non-maneuver, baseline features that support those themes as well. Seems pretty straightforward; that's how we tell various wizards, bards, clerics, and druids apart from one another and everyone seems basically happy with that.

[Yakmala]

If I was attempting to make a "simple" martial, I would want to give them the variety that can be found in Battle Master maneuvers or Warlock invocations but with the focus being primarily passive buffs. Things that increase offense, defense, maneuvering and combat options, but that are not hampered by conditions such as X# times per rest.

It should allow the player to go down multiple paths, based on what they think is important for a martial, but with the minimal bookkeeping possible.

[meandean]

I think it makes more sense to have "easy" and "difficult" subclasses within a class, rather than entire classes that are "easy" or "difficult". It just gives you more options. If I basically just want to swing a sword but don't particularly want to be a "barbarian", I can be a Samurai Fighter. There's no reason that wanting a simple playstyle has to coincide with the flavor and play mechanics of a bare-chested wild man.

[Dienekes]

I think it makes more sense to have "easy" and "difficult" subclasses within a class, rather than entire classes that are "easy" or "difficult". It just gives you more options. If I basically just want to swing a sword but don't particularly want to be a "barbarian", I can be a Samurai Fighter. There's no reason that wanting a simple playstyle has to coincide with the flavor and play mechanics of a bare-chested wild man.

They tried that with Fighter. The Champion and the Battlemaster.

I think the lesson learned from that was, the 4-5 levels worth of features really doesn't suit adding much in the way of complexity. I hoped for a Warblade and I got... well... the Battlemaster. The sad, boring version we're all stuck with.

[Notafish]

They tried that with Fighter. The Champion and the Battlemaster.

I think the lesson learned from that was, the 4-5 levels worth of features really doesn't suit adding much in the way of complexity. I hoped for a Warblade and I got... well... the Battlemaster. The sad, boring version we're all stuck with.

Maybe what is needed in a future edition is "Basic" and "Advanced" (or some other less value-laden descriptor) rules for characters, so that there is a full slate of classes (both magical and not) with limited resource tracking, and a separate set of rules with more limited-use options at each level that can be overlaid on top of the base class. It wouldn't be simple to design and likely impossible to balance, but it might allow for a case where there is a way to play a "basic" Druid who likes doing mostly at-will druid-flavored stuff in combat alongside an "advanced" Fighter who enjoys having lots of options and managing their resources and build. Ideally, I think the advanced character would be more likely to turn the tide in a fight because the player was clever in their choice of actions, while the basic character might have a few more options for describing cool things after the dice say that they did a cool thing (I think the Champion would be much, much less bland if its crits had more flavor than just the usual extra damage).

There would be more room for making a Warblade Fighter if their options replaced certain basic class abilities rather than being limited to select "Subclass" levels.

[paladinn]

They tried that with Fighter. The Champion and the Battlemaster.

I think the lesson learned from that was, the 4-5 levels worth of features really doesn't suit adding much in the way of complexity. I hoped for a Warblade and I got... well... the Battlemaster. The sad, boring version we're all stuck with.

Not everyone wants combat to be tactical, or their fighter to resemble something from a wuxia movie.

[Dienekes]

Not everyone wants combat to be tactical, or their fighter to resemble something from a wuxia movie.

And not everyone wants all complexity to hoarded by casters.

So, I don’t think Saelethil or not_a_fish make bad points. They could either create a separate Advanced game for more tactical combat. But I doubt WotC are going to split their base in that way again. Or simply start at the premise that complexity needs to be spread out more and choose classes to be complex and simple within the same basic theme.

And of those basic themes, we have two mundane frontline classes. Both of them are pretty much dirt simple. One is supposed to represent a highly trained weapon master, the other is supposed to be someone who gets angry and hits things. Of those two, I know which one I think makes more thematic sense to be the complex one.

[Jervis]

I know it’s a contentious position but I think Barbarian could and probably should be a fighter subclass. Alternatively the two could be fused without a lot of problems. Barbarian is so subclass sparse and front loaded that grafting their gimmic onto fighter as a subclass wouldn’t be that hard. It would even fix their late game. Besides if 3.5 and 5e taught me anything its that Barbarian is a mandatory 1-2 level sidequest every martial must depart on and immediately abandon, why not just make it part of one of them.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think complexity should come from the game, not the subclass.

I don't find the Battle Master to be complex. Spending a die to trip or grapple or push or boost your attack is all great, but not really "complex". I don't find resource management to be complex either. It's mostly tedious and not fun for me.

To me, complex is the terrain and the parameters of the combat. How quickly can we reach the enemy, what obstacles are in our way, what abilities do the monsters have, etc.

A martial with some combination of Athlete, Charger, and/or Mobile can whip around the battlefield and leap over obstacles and still hit their target. But if the battlefield isn't that dynamic and there isn't difficult terrain and other terrain to get over, it doesn't matter. You'll never feel like Dashing, or even think about your Jump speed, or getting up from prone quicker, etc.

Grabbing someone and negating their speed can be very tactical, especially against monsters that benefit from moving such as those that have FlyBy Attacks, Charge, Pounce, Burrow speeds, etc. But it's still a very simple maneuver; roll Athletics and succeed or fail. You can easily expand on grappling as well to do other things. If a monster grapples you, they might restrain you. You may be taking auto-damage as well. The worst can suffocate you or swallow you if you remain grappled. There's an incentive to escape the hold. If a martial grabs an enemy, they just keep attacking and the DM (likely) won't feel the pressure to break that hold.

I don't think the game should remove all the complexity out of combat, and then place the burden on martial subclasses to fill in for that. Here, spend a die and you can do an extra thing a few times between rests. That's incredibly lame.

The spellcasting system is very complex and remains intact. There is no reason the combat system can't also be complex.

[Psyren]

They tried that with Fighter. The Champion and the Battlemaster.

I think the lesson learned from that was, the 4-5 levels worth of features really doesn't suit adding much in the way of complexity. I hoped for a Warblade and I got... well... the Battlemaster. The sad, boring version we're all stuck with.

"Warblade" shouldn't be a subclass in 5e - it should be an optional system that can get layered on top of all martials, and easily ignorable by the majority of players who don't want to deal with it. The best way to accomplish both goals right now is third party.


My question for those that disagree with this sentiment, why? And what does a simple fighter give you (conceptually) that you couldn’t get from a Rogue or moderately altered Barbarian (mechanically)?


I'll try tackling both of these (conceptually and mechanically.)

Barbarian's concept is that of a very specific kind of martial, i.e. the one that wades into the enemy head-on with reckless abandon and brutality. Just about all of their subclasses orbit around this core concept. Some of them do this because they believe some entity (gods or spirits or ancestors) has their back, some do it to better experience the savage rush or thrill of knocking heads up close, some do it to emulate some kind of brutish monster that fights similarly, and some do it simply because they believe they're the best suited to do it and live to tell the tale - but regardless of why and how, that's generally the concept being realized or at least aimed at by their mechanics.

Fighter meanwhile is a much broader concept. Fighter can be an incautious if not reckless vanguard too, but it can also be a stoic sentry. Or a patient sniper. Or a savant with all weapons. A flashy bravo. A chivalrous knight/samurai. Fighters focus on skill and technique rather than emulation and abandon, which means less raw power but also more freedom to blend other techniques with their fighting, which notably includes spells and other abilities that need concentration and focus.


The source of their prowess and their typical approach to challenges is different enough that I think them being separate classes is justified. More importantly, doing so results in greater design space and variety for both of them.

The only way I would be fine with barbarian being a fighter subclass is if each base class chassis had rules to swap out their non-subclass abilities for other ones too, and you'd only enable {barbarian subclass} on your Fighter if you swapped in enough {barbarian prerequisites} within the main. Which essentially would keep them as separate classes from one another anyway.

[Dienekes]

I know it’s a contentious position but I think Barbarian could and probably should be a fighter subclass. Alternatively the two could be fused without a lot of problems. Barbarian is so subclass sparse and front loaded that grafting their gimmic onto fighter as a subclass wouldn’t be that hard. It would even fix their late game. Besides if 3.5 and 5e taught me anything its that Barbarian is a mandatory 1-2 level sidequest every martial must depart on and immediately abandon, why not just make it part of one of them.

So, here's the thing. You're not wholly wrong. But the exact same argument can be made for Sorcerers for Wizards, and Druids for Clerics at least conceptually. But what makes a concept capable of being a class is if it provides a distinctly different experience conceptually and in flavor than the other. And I think the potential for Barbarians to be completely mechanically distinct from Fighters is there. WotC just really didn't do much with it.

Now part of the issue is as you said, the class is frontloaded with a complete lack of much of anything to do in the later levels. But that's a WotC problem that isn't even unique to Barbarians. It's true for all the mundane classes to some extent or another. Outside subclasses, Fighters get nothing new after 9th level, Rogues have some, but most are just abilities they receive way later than those types of abilities have been relevant. Monk surprisingly has some of the better later level features, and a good chunk of them are just flavor ribbons.

The latter levels needed some work.

And as to subclasses and mechanics. I do think having a martial class which says "all you need to worry about is this encounter long buff" is fine. Good even. There's a lot you could do with that concept. But for some reason, they kind of placed all mundane Barbarian options under the remarkably bland Berserker. Well, all except for the Battlerager, but less said about that attempt the better.

But they didn't have to. They could have made the Whirling Dervish option (but they didn't because, apparently, they thought a Barbarian/Rogue multiclass would be the most OP thing ever. I don't get it, but ok), they could do a mounted Keshig style, they could do a gladiator who flavors the rage as a combat performance. There's a lot they could do, but WotC doesn't really seem interested in it at all. Which is, a little disappointing.


"Warblade" shouldn't be a subclass in 5e - it should be an optional system that can get layered on top of all martials, and easily ignorable by the majority of players who don't want to deal with it. The best way to accomplish both goals right now is third party.


I agree with the first bit. But the major benefit of classes is that you can separate out mechanics into chunks and players buy in to those subsystems by picking the class. I don't see why a maneuver/stance system could just be the core feature of a class, as that allows a different class the option of ignoring it. For players like paladinn who don't want to deal with that sort of thing.

[Psyren]

I think it's possible, even easy, to buff martials in T3/T4 without going whole hog into Tome of Battle 2.0.



I agree with the first bit. But the major benefit of classes is that you can separate out mechanics into chunks and players buy in to those subsystems by picking the class. I don't see why a maneuver/stance system could just be the core feature of a class, as that allows a different class the option of ignoring it. For players like paladinn who don't want to deal with that sort of thing.

The issue is that the DM has to buy into that subsystem too. And banning or editing a subsystem is a lot easier than a class; it's like saying "we're not doing item crafting this campaign," that affects everyone equally even if only Jim was really interested in crafting.

You also need to worry about what happens when a Warblade and a Fighter player are at the same table. If the maneuvers system is realistically only accessible via the former, there's no way that the latter isn't just completely overshadowed. It's not like comparing oneself to a Hexblade or a Moon Druid because you don't even have the mental justification of "of course those two can do more stuff, they're full casters." You just end up with Martial A who is strictly better than Martial B. Making it a class-agnostic subsystem eliminates that possibility.

Personally I like the PF1 approach of creating a Stamina system that all the martials can access, and which Fighters were slightly better at than the others. The big downside is that it was based around combat feats, which don't exist in 5e, so it would need to be redesigned to somehow. Preferably to make it a great deal for martials, a worse deal for gishes, and either inaccessible or irrelevant for full casters.

[Dr.Samurai]

And as to subclasses and mechanics. I do think having a martial class which says "all you need to worry about is this encounter long buff" is fine. Good even. There's a lot you could do with that concept. But for some reason, they kind of placed all mundane Barbarian options under the remarkably bland Berserker. Well, all except for the Battlerager, but less said about that attempt the better.
In my opinion (and maybe this isn't a particularly unique take, I don't know), below level 10 the Berserker would be hands down the best barbarian subclass if the Exhaustion mechanic were removed.

The ability to take your action and still attack as a bonus action simultaneously adds offensive power, but also versatility and a lot of movement potential. Immunity to Fear/Charm goes without saying. And I'm not even saying this would be OP or anything, I just think it's a solid concept for the barbarian and I'd likely choose it more often than other subclasses. Partly because it's "mundane", but I really like the idea of being able to attack while using my action for something else if need be, and not worrying about Fear/Charm.

[KorvinStarmast]

Things that increase offense, defense, maneuvering and combat options, but that are not hampered by conditions such as X# times per rest. This I agree with. Actions, bonus actions, reactions, or movement/jump buffs.

It should allow the player to go down multiple paths, based on what they think is important for a martial, but with the minimal bookkeeping possible. Yes.


What makes a concept capable of being a class is if it provides a distinctly different experience conceptually and in flavor than the other. And I think the potential for Barbarians to be completely mechanically distinct from Fighters is there. WotC just really didn't do much with it. I thought that Zealot and Spirite Guardian were interesting attempts, though, even though the base class IMO needs some tweaks.

Now part of the issue is as you said, the class is frontloaded with a complete lack of much of anything to do in the later levels. {snip} Monk surprisingly has some of the better later level features, and a good chunk of them are just flavor ribbons. Our group is discovering how handy it is to have a monk in late Tier 2.


Well, all except for the Battlerager, but less said about that attempt the better. Aye.



They could have made the Whirling Dervish option
they could do a mounted Keshig style,
they could do a gladiator who flavors the rage as a combat performance.
There's a lot they could do, but WotC doesn't really seem interested in it at all.
1. Yes, and there are some Ranger features like whirlwind that could be adapted to such a sub class. 2. Yes, except that 5e doesn't do great with mounted combat out of the box (the Mounted Combatant feat should, IMO, be a standard Fighter and Paladin feature). 3. Oh heck yes, although I think that Totem Warrior can cover most of that pretty well - if they are going to make the Purple Dragon knight, why not the Barbarian gladiator (see the Conan movie with Arnold, see Gladiator (the big guy from Germania) and so on).

But WoTC isn't trying to emulate anything other than D&D genre, so most of us look at the tools given to customize a PC and find a way.

But the major benefit of classes is that you can separate out mechanics into chunks and players buy in to those subsystems by picking the class. I don't see why a maneuver/stance system could just be the core feature of a class, as that allows a different class the option of ignoring it. For players like paladin who don't want to deal with that sort of thing. I suspect that 5.5e will start to see the addition of stuff like this.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Grabbing someone and negating their speed can be very tactical, especially against monsters that benefit from moving such as those that have FlyBy Attacks, Charge, Pounce, Burrow speeds, etc.
True...but is it more useful than an attack action? Is it really worth using your entire turn to cancel out part of another creature's turn? In some circumstances, maybe, but all too often the answer is "no." Especially as you go up in level and your action gets more and more powerful, while the basic shove/grab/disarm/whatever maneuver remains static.

And it's not a D&D-specific problem, for what it's worth. I've played quite a few different systems over the years, and the it's hard to think of any time or place a maneuver was used regularly. (At least when the cost was your action-- Mutants and Masterminds made it really easy to combine an attack roll with a grapple attempt). The only thing that really comes to mind is aspect-stacking in Fate, and that was mostly because of quirky health rules.

[Psyren]

For the record, "grab someone" doesn't negate your entire turn, it replaces one attack. Most martials in T2+ get to do that and still do stuff. Moreover, grapple uses the Attack action, so you can even still do stuff like Flurry that needs the Attack action to trigger.

[Jervis]

I think it's possible, even easy, to buff martials in T3/T4 without going whole hog into Tome of Battle 2.0.



The issue is that the DM has to buy into that subsystem too. And banning or editing a subsystem is a lot easier than a class; it's like saying "we're not doing item crafting this campaign," that affects everyone equally even if only Jim was really interested in crafting.

You also need to worry about what happens when a Warblade and a Fighter player are at the same table. If the maneuvers system is realistically only accessible via the former, there's no way that the latter isn't just completely overshadowed. It's not like comparing oneself to a Hexblade or a Moon Druid because you don't even have the mental justification of "of course those two can do more stuff, they're full casters." You just end up with Martial A who is strictly better than Martial B. Making it a class-agnostic subsystem eliminates that possibility.

Personally I like the PF1 approach of creating a Stamina system that all the martials can access, and which Fighters were slightly better at than the others. The big downside is that it was based around combat feats, which don't exist in 5e, so it would need to be redesigned to somehow. Preferably to make it a great deal for martials, a worse deal for gishes, and either inaccessible or irrelevant for full casters.

In my experience with 3.5 at least ToB existing at all as an option is enough to get people to just play a Warblade instead of a fighter. I don’t consider that a valid complaint against it. It’s like someone making a fixed monk who’s just monk but better and complaining that it invalidates monk. Chances are if you’re using something like ToB you agree that existing martial options are bad so why try to balance them against the existing ones. For my money I still say the playtest got it right back when a version of battle master was just part of every martial characters kit and you could use superiority dice for different things depending on class.

[Dr.Samurai]

True...but is it more useful than an attack action? Is it really worth using your entire turn to cancel out part of another creature's turn? In some circumstances, maybe, but all too often the answer is "no." Especially as you go up in level and your action gets more and more powerful, while the basic shove/grab/disarm/whatever maneuver remains static.

And it's not a D&D-specific problem, for what it's worth. I've played quite a few different systems over the years, and the it's hard to think of any time or place a maneuver was used regularly. (At least when the cost was your action-- Mutants and Masterminds made it really easy to combine an attack roll with a grapple attempt). The only thing that really comes to mind is aspect-stacking in Fate, and that was mostly because of quirky health rules.
I think this is actually more true at lower levels than later in the game, because at lower levels monsters have fewer hit points and landing a hit can be much more impactful, and grabbing someone may take up your only attack. Later on, you have Extra Attack, so you can still land a hit, and monsters are much tougher and more lethal and keeping one close to you may be worth the single attack.

That said, I still generally agree with you and it's why I brought it up. Everyone in combat, whether players or monsters, are just bags of HP. You just hit them until they reach 0. There's no grabbing a gorgon and exposing it's belly so someone can bypass it's impenetrable metallic hide. Or grappling an annis hag and immobilizing her arms because one claw attack can rend someone in half and isn't to be taken lightly. Or clamping a winter wolf's snout shut so it can use it's breath weapon, or covering a Medusa's eyes or forcing her gaze elsewhere. Or breaking limbs, or sleeper holds, or just throwing people, etc.

Martial combat is just not lethal or interesting. It's just Pong, back and forth between PCs and Monsters until one of them can't anymore.

[Psyren]

In my experience with 3.5 at least ToB existing at all as an option is enough to get people to just play a Warblade instead of a fighter. I don’t consider that a valid complaint against it.

ToB was very far from universally adopted even when it was first-party. It was in fact extremely controversial, to the point that even WotC themselves officially acknowledged the "too anime" complaints flying around. And since you're never getting rid of the Fighter, then the solution is to buff Fighter, not try a hamfisted replacement that will just create acrimony.


It’s like someone making a fixed monk who’s just monk but better and complaining that it invalidates monk.

Except you can fix monk without creating or reintroducing an entirely new subsystem. Their biggest problems are a weak defensive chassis, MAD, and ki starvation at low levels. None of that needs ToB to solve.


Chances are if you’re using something like ToB you agree that existing martial options are bad so why try to balance them against the existing ones. For my money I still say the playtest got it right back when a version of battle master was just part of every martial characters kit and you could use superiority dice for different things depending on class.

Everyone accessing Battle Master options is fine, and we have that now via Martial Adept and Superior Technique. The problem is that martials (especially monks and barbarians) need more ASIs so they make use of that access more easily.

[paladinn]

[QUOTE=Jervis;25533464For my money I still say the playtest got it right back when a version of battle master was just part of every martial characters kit and you could use superiority dice for different things depending on class.[/QUOTE]

I missed the playtest. How was a "version of battle master part of every martial character's kit"? Do you have any docs on this?

The idea is intriguing, even if I don't care for the implementation. Not a big fan of tacking on more mechanics (i.e. superiority dice).

[Jervis]

ToB was very far from universally adopted even when it was first-party. It was in fact extremely controversial, to the point that even WotC themselves officially acknowledged the "too anime" complaints flying around. And since you're never getting rid of the Fighter, then the solution is to buff Fighter, not try a hamfisted replacement that will just create acrimony.



Except you can fix monk without creating or reintroducing an entirely new subsystem. Their biggest problems are a weak defensive chassis, MAD, and ki starvation at low levels. None of that needs ToB to solve.



Everyone accessing Battle Master options is fine, and we have that now via Martial Adept and Superior Technique. The problem is that martials (especially monks and barbarians) need more ASIs so they make use of that access more easily.

One of the issues with martials that ToB tried to fix was that they just had scaling numbers competing against options that did more to effect the fight. Not quite on the same level as spells but the main goal was to give them more ways to effect the fight than attack or use something like a grapple or trip attempt.

As for superiority dice and maneuvers as a whole i’m not happy with how the feats available do it. Then again that’s mostly because melee martials burn through so many feats for damage purposes that you probably won’t be able to use them until later. That’s part of why I like the Dragonlance backgrounds giving them even if I wasn’t happy with the direction they were moving in. Someone else asked about the playtest so I’ll give more thoughts on it further down.


I missed the playtest. How was a "version of battle master part of every martial character's kit"? Do you have any docs on this?

The idea is intriguing, even if I don't care for the implementation. Not a big fan of tacking on more mechanics (i.e. superiority dice).

I don’t have the docs anymore, I originally got them from someone else and lost them with a computer change. Basically the martial classes could add a die to one roll each turn with the options being based on class IIRC. You could just go straight damage and add it to a weapon damage roll, you could add it to a athletics check, etc. I think the system eventually became the battle master subclass (instead of just a thing all the mundanes got) and the expertise ability rogues and bards have in future iterations. It gave classes without spellcasting some nice options for buffing checks that scales with class level without resource tracking. Personally I like it though I can understand why you would move it to a short rest recovery instead of making it just a think you could do.

[Psyren]

I'd be fine letting every martial get Martial Adept and Superior Technique for free and seeing what happens. I doubt it would break anything in a high-powered campaign.

[Jervis]

I'd be fine letting every martial get Martial Adept and Superior Technique for free and seeing what happens. I doubt it would break anything in a high-powered campaign.

Honestly that sounds like a fun houserule. Next time I run 5e I might do some mad science with that

[Amechra]

True...but is it more useful than an attack action? Is it really worth using your entire turn to cancel out part of another creature's turn? In some circumstances, maybe, but all too often the answer is "no." Especially as you go up in level and your action gets more and more powerful, while the basic shove/grab/disarm/whatever maneuver remains static.

And it's not a D&D-specific problem, for what it's worth. I've played quite a few different systems over the years, and the it's hard to think of any time or place a maneuver was used regularly. (At least when the cost was your action-- Mutants and Masterminds made it really easy to combine an attack roll with a grapple attempt). The only thing that really comes to mind is aspect-stacking in Fate, and that was mostly because of quirky health rules.

I'm honestly starting to think that bonus action attacks were a mistake. I feel like the game would actually be more interesting if you did your offensive thing (attack, cast an offensive spell, etc) as an Action, and then you did other stuff with your bonus action.

As it stands, there's a lot of incentive to figure out a way to do your offensive thing with both actions.

[Psyren]

I'm honestly starting to think that bonus action attacks were a mistake. I feel like the game would actually be more interesting if you did your offensive thing (attack, cast an offensive spell, etc) as an Action, and then you did other stuff with your bonus action.

As it stands, there's a lot of incentive to figure out a way to do your offensive thing with both actions.

But how many concepts would that eliminate? No pet classes, no TWF, no Flurry, no Shifters, no Star Druids, no Artillerists...

[Jervis]

But how many concepts would that eliminate? No pet classes, no TWF, no Flurry, no Shifters, no Star Druids, no Artillerists...

To be fair you could rework most of those to be action based. Flurry, TWF, shifter attacks, etc could easily be reworded to just give you an extra hit as part of the same attack action (buff that lets monks use their other BAs without sacrificing damage but it would drain resources quickly so eh). Likewise the pet based abilities could use your action and just be more impactful or let them attack as part of your attack action beastmaster style, granted that makes Druids with pets not cast spells to use pets or what have you but they can always still concentrate on spells and use their action on future turns to deal out damage. Stars Druids, artillerists, and clerics are a fair point though since efficient action economy usage is their main thing and if those were gone they kinda don’t have anything to use their BA on most turns.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be fair you could rework most of those to be action based. Flurry, TWF, shifter attacks, etc could easily be reworded to just give you an extra hit as part of the same attack action (buff that lets monks use their other BAs without sacrificing damage but it would drain resources quickly so eh). Likewise the pet based abilities could use your action and just be more impactful or let them attack as part of your attack action beastmaster style, granted that makes Druids with pets not cast spells to use pets or what have you but they can always still concentrate on spells and use their action on future turns to deal out damage. Stars Druids, artillerists, and clerics are a fair point though since efficient action economy usage is their main thing and if those were gone they kinda don’t have anything to use their BA on most turns.

To the latter, I say "good". Give them meaningful things to do that aren't attacking. Spiritual weapon can be "when you cast a spell or take the attack action, you can..." Same with artillerists. Don't know and don't care about stars druids.

[Jervis]

To the latter, I say "good". Give them meaningful things to do that aren't attacking. Spiritual weapon can be "when you cast a spell or take the attack action, you can..." Same with artillerists. Don't know and don't care about stars druids.

For context stars basically gets a mini spiritual weapon as a class feature. So yeah you could work that into the same change if you wanted to implement this. That said, while I don’t mind abilities like this being attached to certain actions like casting a designated “attack” spell or taking the attack action, you do run into potential issues of having a lot of riders that all go off at once while having those take a BA would prevent this sort of “stacking”. Wether this is bad or not depends on design intent though it might encourage excessive dipping to get as many “when you attack you can…” effects as possible. You could always make a designated action required to use them but then we spin back around to the BA issue. Not saying it can’t be done just pointing out a potential problem.

[Zhorn]

I'd be fine letting every martial get Martial Adept and Superior Technique for free and seeing what happens. I doubt it would break anything in a high-powered campaign.
We disagree on a lot of stuff... but this I see as a workable idea.

Personally I like to normalize for my players that starting off on the lower end of the power-curve is fine and should be expected, for both casters and martials alike, so getting freebies at the start of the campaign generally doesn't happen. BUT I do also make it known to my players that they can get additional features and power growth outside of regular level progression and loot drops through story advancement and personalized quest rewards. This is regularly getting a bonus feature subclass feature to something narratively adjacent to the class/subclass they are playing, or fitting to the theme of they character's actions and story they are building.
For martial characters, getting bonus superiority dice and maneuvers as those rewards is a simple way of granting power boosts and combat versatility that are strong, fun, but not game breaking.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For context stars basically gets a mini spiritual weapon as a class feature. So yeah you could work that into the same change if you wanted to implement this. That said, while I don’t mind abilities like this being attached to certain actions like casting a designated “attack” spell or taking the attack action, you do run into potential issues of having a lot of riders that all go off at once while having those take a BA would prevent this sort of “stacking”. Wether this is bad or not depends on design intent though it might encourage excessive dipping to get as many “when you attack you can…” effects as possible. You could always make a designated action required to use them but then we spin back around to the BA issue. Not saying it can’t be done just pointing out a potential problem.

Seems easier just to make them not stack. Like Extra Attack doesn't. A tag or something that says "mutually exclusive option". Or a general rule that says "if multiple features or abilities would let you make an extra attack beyond the attack action or cast a spell option, you must pick at most one per turn." So a cleric monk could choose either flurry or spiritual weapon, and could change which one every turn.

[Zhorn]

yes, tying the bonus into a finite resource is a good measure to prevent the endless stacking, being either the resources of the action economy "when you do X, you can as a bonus action do y" or an available count "spend a Z point to do W" (where Z is abundant enough to have a few good uses when you want it, but restricted enough to not be an always-on feature)

[Sorinth]

I would expect that the simple martial would need to cover the classic Knight archetype and so Rogue or Barbarian would be a poor choice because even if you can it won't be the first thing that comes to peoples mind which is what you want from the simple class.

Since this topic comes up regularly I would think the answer is a new martial class that is mostly mundane but has complexity but still has a power level in line with other martials. When WotC decided to push Maneuvers into a subclass it might have been better for them to create a new class entirely with Maneuvers as the core mechanical feature. Losing out on stuff like action surge, extra ASIs, but then have more powerful maneuvers that with level requirements like Invocations.

[paladinn]

I would expect that the simple martial would need to cover the classic Knight archetype and so Rogue or Barbarian would be a poor choice because even if you can it won't be the first thing that comes to peoples mind which is what you want from the simple class.

Since this topic comes up regularly I would think the answer is a new martial class that is mostly mundane but has complexity but still has a power level in line with other martials. When WotC decided to push Maneuvers into a subclass it might have been better for them to create a new class entirely with Maneuvers as the core mechanical feature. Losing out on stuff like action surge, extra ASIs, but then have more powerful maneuvers that with level requirements like Invocations.

Wasn't that the idea behind the Battlemaster?

[Psyren]

To the latter, I say "good". Give them meaningful things to do that aren't attacking. Spiritual weapon can be "when you cast a spell or take the attack action, you can..." Same with artillerists. Don't know and don't care about stars druids.

There are vastly more actions in this game than attacking and casting spells, and that's before we even get to the Improvised ones. And good for you for not caring about Stars Druids, Fathomless Warlocks etc., but I guarantee that many other people who are not you do.


To be fair you could rework most of those to be action based. Flurry, TWF, shifter attacks, etc could easily be reworded to just give you an extra hit as part of the same attack action (buff that lets monks use their other BAs without sacrificing damage but it would drain resources quickly so eh). Likewise the pet based abilities could use your action and just be more impactful or let them attack as part of your attack action beastmaster style, granted that makes Druids with pets not cast spells to use pets or what have you but they can always still concentrate on spells and use their action on future turns to deal out damage. Stars Druids, artillerists, and clerics are a fair point though since efficient action economy usage is their main thing and if those were gone they kinda don’t have anything to use their BA on most turns.

But a lot of these are not dependent on attacking to activate at all, so pinning them to the attack action and removing BAs limit what players can do. What if my Beastmaster wants to Help my beast attack instead of attacking myself because its attacks are more effective? (Not unreasonable since the beast is guaranteed to have magical attacks at 6th while I may not.) What if my monk wants to SotW/PD or my Rogue wants to CA while drinking a potion, or otherwise doing something that isn't attacking? And all the fun classes I listed like Stars and Artillerists and every Cleric, what about them?

I could maybe see moving to a 2-3 action economy and making spellcasting take more than one of those actions, like PF2 does, but removing BAs and replacing them with nothing is a non-starter.


We disagree on a lot of stuff... but this I see as a workable idea.

Personally I like to normalize for my players that starting off on the lower end of the power-curve is fine and should be expected, for both casters and martials alike, so getting freebies at the start of the campaign generally doesn't happen. BUT I do also make it known to my players that they can get additional features and power growth outside of regular level progression and loot drops through story advancement and personalized quest rewards. This is regularly getting a bonus feature subclass feature to something narratively adjacent to the class/subclass they are playing, or fitting to the theme of they character's actions and story they are building.
For martial characters, getting bonus superiority dice and maneuvers as those rewards is a simple way of granting power boosts and combat versatility that are strong, fun, but not game breaking.

I'm proposing this largely for people complaining that martials don't have enough buttons to push and feel too far behind casters. Giving them free stuff just for being martials is the obvious solution to that feeling, but one I don't think needs to be baseline across all tables, just the ones where this sentiment is routine.

[Cass]

If I was attempting to make a "simple" martial, I would want to give them the variety that can be found in Battle Master maneuvers or Warlock invocations but with the focus being primarily passive buffs. Things that increase offense, defense, maneuvering and combat options, but that are not hampered by conditions such as X# times per rest.

It should allow the player to go down multiple paths, based on what they think is important for a martial, but with the minimal bookkeeping possible.

I was thinking something similar and my best idea would be to make Path of the Totem's features available to all Barbarians in a more limited style of Invocations, like 1 every 5 levels but the first one is the Spirit Seeker to compensate the Barbarian's lack of utility a bit. (with a slight nerf to Bear resistances to exclude Radiant, Necrotic and Force damage too)

[Sorinth]

Wasn't that the idea behind the Battlemaster?

Yes, but by limiting it to a subclass it remains fairly static, whereas if it was a separate class it would get regular updates via new subclasses to keep it fresh and might stop people from constantly complaining about the fighter being to simple (A long shot I know).

[paladinn]

Yes, but by limiting it to a subclass it remains fairly static, whereas if it was a separate class it would get regular updates via new subclasses to keep it fresh and might stop people from constantly complaining about the fighter being to simple (A long shot I know).

I rather like the fighter being simple; but then I'm an OSR grognard.

The basic fighter should be simple; the battlemaster is the more complex version; the EK is the magical one. And whatever others.

Honestly I wonder what was the point of the samurai.

[Sorinth]

I rather like the fighter being simple; but then I'm an OSR grognard.

The basic fighter should be simple; the battlemaster is the more complex version; the EK is the magical one. And whatever others.

Honestly I wonder what was the point of the samurai.

I agree that Fighter should be simple, all I'm saying is they maybe should have made the complex version it's own class rather then a subclass of the simple.

[paladinn]

I agree that Fighter should be simple, all I'm saying is they maybe should have made the complex version it's own class rather then a subclass of the simple.

I'm actually a fan of consolidating all classes into subclasses of the "big 4". Paladins, rangers and barbarians started as fighter subclasses, and that's not a bad thing. They could all benefit from the combat abilities of the core fighter class. And there wouldn't be any question about paladins and rangers being more "junior clerics/druids" than fighters.

The main ranger class is possibly more lame than the fighter. The hunter subclass would actually make a good fighter ranger subclass. I actually worked one up like that :)

[Psyren]

Yes, but by limiting it to a subclass it remains fairly static, whereas if it was a separate class it would get regular updates via new subclasses to keep it fresh and might stop people from constantly complaining about the fighter being to simple (A long shot I know).

I'd say they're already keeping it fresh. Not only are new maneuvers being added, there are even new feats and fighting styles that get you additional superiority dice.

[Sorinth]

I'm actually a fan of consolidating all classes into subclasses of the "big 4". Paladins, rangers and barbarians started as fighter subclasses, and that's not a bad thing. They could all benefit from the combat abilities of the core fighter class. And there wouldn't be any question about paladins and rangers being more "junior clerics/druids" than fighters.

The main ranger class is possibly more lame than the fighter. The hunter subclass would actually make a good fighter ranger subclass. I actually worked one up like that :)

Personally I'm not a big fan of doing that because I find it would limit the more niche concepts. For example if Barbarian was a Fighter subclass then the chances are you get that 1 subclass that uses the Rage mechanic and that's it. So you get probably either Berserker or Totem concept, but won't ever see Wild Magic Barbarian concepts.

[Psyren]

Personally I'm not a big fan of doing that because I find it would limit the more niche concepts. For example if Barbarian was a Fighter subclass then the chances are you get that 1 subclass that uses the Rage mechanic and that's it. So you get probably either Berserker or Totem concept, but won't ever see Wild Magic Barbarian concepts.

Or my favorite, Beast! Nor even the Giant one they're working on from the UA.

[Jervis]

But a lot of these are not dependent on attacking to activate at all, so pinning them to the attack action and removing BAs limit what players can do. What if my Beastmaster wants to Help my beast attack instead of attacking myself because its attacks are more effective? (Not unreasonable since the beast is guaranteed to have magical attacks at 6th while I may not.) What if my monk wants to SotW/PD or my Rogue wants to CA while drinking a potion, or otherwise doing something that isn't attacking? And all the fun classes I listed like Stars and Artillerists and every Cleric, what about them?

I could maybe see moving to a 2-3 action economy and making spellcasting take more than one of those actions, like PF2 does, but removing BAs and replacing them with nothing is a non-starter.


For context i’m not actually a fan of removing BAs/removing damaging BAs and making those features part of a action. I’m just making a point of listing some ways it could work if someone wanted too.

[Psyren]

I think it could eventually be made to work too, but I think we'd get much more bang for our design buck improving the existing system than ripping up the floorboards this way.

An alternative I could see working is "everything is at least one action, but you get more actions." Which again, PF1 started in Unchained and carried through to PF2.

[Dienekes]

I think it could eventually be made to work too, but I think we'd get much more bang for our design buck improving the existing system than ripping up the floorboards this way.

An alternative I could see working is "everything is at least one action, but you get more actions." Which again, PF1 started in Unchained and carried through to PF2.

I don't think the initial comment of the discussion was to remove Bonus Actions, it was to remove Bonus Action attacks.

And honestly, in theory, I kinda agree with the logic behind it. As it currently stands, every optimized martial's handbook would say "Get your consistent Bonus Action attack as fast as you can. Use it just about every turn."

Which is why handcrossbows and PAM are so powerful, and why two-weapon fighting with it's bonus action already taken up while only getting the damage equivalent of a featless martial is so weak. It's also why martials end up feeling so braindead when not only your action, but also your bonus action are pretty much called for to do the exact same thing round after round.

Removing bonus action attacks and replacing them with a lot more flexibility in what your bonus action can do (something like Star Wars Saga Edition, where every single player starts off with something like 4 different ways to use their Bonus Action equivalent that each give interesting benefits that aren't just damage, and depending on your build quite a few others you can get after).

Now all that said, I also think you're right that changing the Bonus Action attack from the game in its current state would require a lot of rewriting from the ground up wit this new mentality in mind. That is pretty much inevitable. But I do think it would have been worth it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think the initial comment of the discussion was to remove Bonus Actions, it was to remove Bonus Action attacks.

And honestly, in theory, I kinda agree with the logic behind it. As it currently stands, every optimized martial's handbook would say "Get your consistent Bonus Action attack as fast as you can. Use it just about every turn."

Which is why handcrossbows and PAM are so powerful, and why two-weapon fighting with it's bonus action already taken up while only getting the damage equivalent of a featless martial is so weak. It's also why martials end up feeling so braindead when not only your action, but also your bonus action are pretty much called for to do the exact same thing round after round.

Removing bonus action attacks and replacing them with a lot more flexibility in what your bonus action can do (something like Star Wars Saga Edition, where every single player starts off with something like 4 different ways to use their Bonus Action equivalent that each give interesting benefits that aren't just damage, and depending on your build quite a few others you can get after).

Now all that said, I also think you're right that changing the Bonus Action attack from the game in its current state would require a lot of rewriting from the ground up wit this new mentality in mind. That is pretty much inevitable. But I do think it would have been worth it.

Or, you know, you could just remove the bonus action attacks. Completely. Don't replace them with other attacks. At most, if you decide that the extra damage is needed, bake it into the default attack routine. So TWF would be streamlined into the Attack action, PAM and CBE do something else instead, spiritual weapon stops being something expected in the cleric's at-will damage[1], etc.

But set a precedent that the bonus action is a bonus--nice to have, but not a core part of the build such that you're missing out on something system-expected if you don't use it and not distorting the calculus if you do have it. Basically, it shouldn't add more numbers to what you're already doing by default.

I mean, if we want it to be more flexible, let people do Interact with an Object as a bonus action OR an action.

[1] My RED calculations show that a cleric using sacred flame and a 100% uptime spiritual weapon is still only doing 0.9 RED. Which is less than EB+AB (no hex) spam (1.0 RED).